I sent you Kina a PM with my statements but I am leery of sharing them with you.I will contact Cort.
Fine.
There are other remedies at hand to put a stop to this.
Then pursue them if you wish. I do not think you will find any defamatory content on this forum, but if there is any that we have missed we will of course take it down; we don't support or defend the posting of defamatory content and we take it down when we are alerted to it. If you believe you have a case, then pursue it, that is your right. If you believe there is anything defamatory on these forums, report it and we'll remove it.
Researchers are engaged in prostate cancer research but because of the contamination issue veered over to the ME/CFS patient community. They read the threads on this forum and other forums and are appalled as to how they are being disparaged on these forums.
I am not aware of any disparaging of prostate cancer researchers on these forums. We frequently critique papers, and where their conclusions over-reach their results that is certainly criticised, and rightly so, but I'm not aware of the disparaging comments you're referring to. I don't understand why you keep criticising our forums for the behaviour of other forums. If there is behaviour here that you or others don't like, it would make more sense to criticise it as and when it happens, so that we have some idea of what you're talking about.
But, then this is all hearsay, unless I disclose the email communications with them or reveal my sources. Investigative reporters from the most prestigious newspapers are able to obtain information from undisclosed sources within organizations who wish to remain anonymous.
Yes, quite, I have emphasised that above: it is just hearsay, and if the communications are private and can't be disclosed then perhaps you shouldn't be making these general comments if you can't explain with evidence what exactly you are talking about. As I pointed out above, you criticise others for posting without providing evidence. Respected journalists quoting unnamed sources is one thing; anonymous posters making contentious claims that can't be verified on discussion forums is a rather different scenario.
What I object to is the libelous and defaming statements and attacks leading researchers without one shred of evidence. The attacks on Lipkin and Racienello are without foundation and substantial. They have gone on public record how they have received the most vile and vitriolic comments from patients which is very disturbing to them. When members of other forums which comprise of members here concerning that Lipkin is part of this so called conspiracy and will produce negative results is libelous and defaming and impinges on his reputation and motives.
I've made it clear that we don't condone or support defamatory statements here. I don't recall there ever being any attacks of that nature on Lipkin or Racaniello here - I criticised a specific comment in Racaniello's blog recently myself, but also emphasised that I think his blog is a very refreshing and welcome type of public communication about science, and I think he has generally been very open-minded and fair about this research.
If members of other forums are posting defamatory comments on other forums, then you should take that issue up on those forums and take any legal action you see fit on those other forums. Why drag us into it? It doesn't seem fair to us to drag us into arguments you have with members on other forums. If some of our members are involved on these forums too, then I think when you're here you should respond to what they are saying here rather than bringing up separate arguments from elsewhere.
I am surprise that would exceed as a moderator your authority by posting bias commentary on here. A moderator should maintain impartiality if they are to be an effective moderator and set aside their prejudices and biases as well.
I'm not sure how you understand what my authority to be and how you feel I've exceeded it. I don't see where anything that I've posted above represents biased commentary or prejudice. Being a moderator does not mean I may not express my opinions, and I mainly expressed the opinion that posting here to criticise the behaviour of patients elsewhere, in a generalised way, is inflammatory and divisive. It's part of my job as moderator to try to deal with such problems and that's what I was doing. As far as the moderation of this thread is concerned, I asked other moderators to take care of that and check the thread for any rule breaches, because I am posting myself, and if anything I've said breaks any rules, I've encouraged them to treat it objectively.
I will not be posting on here again and will seek other remedies to correct this problem
If the problem you want to correct, and the issue you want to discuss, is comments that have been made on other forums, then it's a good thing that you should take those issues up elsewhere, where they belong. If you want to post here about discussions that are happening
here, rather than elsewhere, that's fine.
You frequently seem to provoke a contentious reaction here by criticising the behaviour of patients in a general way, without being able to produce evidence, and you seem to post about that subject out of context on a forum whose members have nothing to do with what you're describing. All I can suggest is that if you see or hear about behaviour you are not happy about, you should take those issues up in the proper context, when and where those incidents occur, rather than taking it out on us.
I'm sorry that you don't seem to have taken on board the points I have tried to get across. I was trying to suggest ways that you might engage with patients, here and elsewhere, more effectively. If you feel the approach you are taking is appropriate and effective, and you're helping to reduce tension and effectively tackle the problems that concern you, then I guess you'll continue with that approach. I was just trying to suggest that if you ever feel like you're banging your head against a brick wall, maybe you might like to consider another approach.