I don't think i was wrong there. I did not introduce any criteria in my post determining who is to be considered a scientist. Basically, what i was saying is that only someone who understands a topic can make a serious judgment about the quality of something published in that area. And i think this is correct.
My point was more something else, anyway. I wanted to say that instead of getting angry over studies, articles etc. we consider bad science, we should try to produce more good science. And for that, again, we need scientists. I can't do it and i guess neither can you. But we can fund it or even organize it, and i think this is our job.
But your words certainly gave the impression you think only some people with 'insider status' can 'do science'. I haven't got time to explain Mary Anning in detail to you, but she was a major discoverer of paeleantological evidence who was an 'amateur', and did not get her due recognition because of that. Indeed, you appear to have very narrow beliefs on what the ME/CFS community is 'permitted' to do ('our jobs' - raise money?). By your logic, some of us have not right to be critiquing bad science (you misrepresent that as 'getting angry') but should sit on our hands, or our hair, like Rapunzel, waiting for the prince (Mr 'good science') to rescue us, except for raising funds. By your logic, no-one should have done work showing the flaws of psychogenic explanations, because psychs are 'scientists' (that's an unsafe assumption, but they do claim to be and are accepted by others as such).
I TOTALLY disagree. We should never think this way and it is not true. A simple calculation. 2 million ME/CFS patients in Europe and North America. I'm pretty sure 75% of them can save 100 US Dollars per year, if they plan it. This makes 150 million US Dollars per year. It's not a miracle, it's even rather easy to be done. All we have to do is start doing it.
I'm sorry, but this shows an (to my mind, by now, inexcusable) ignorance of the rank poverty affecting many ME/CFS sufferers, and possibly an ignorance of the issue of poverty
per se. That's even before we discuss that even your unrealistic scenario is still unlikely to be enough of a 'miracle' to get that panacea of 'research' completed. There are people out there living in 'Dickensian conditions' (a key advocate for ME/CFS sufferers' quote actually, not my own) who can barely afford heating or food (one of these has to suffer usually) because of the affects of psychogenic dismissal on benefits.
I don't know who Jane Austen is. And i would like to ask you to please stop talking this way, i'm trying to be civil.
I'm sorry, but making a literary reference is hardly uncivil, which is what you are implying, and it's unreasonable to expect somebody to 'stop talking this way'.
Then please go and read up about the story. I don't have time and energy to report it all.
Which may be why you resorted to accusing people of being paranoid and aggressive. Lack of ability, for whatever reason, to be able to follow something, does not mitigate ad hominem attack on members of this community, which is what you did.
I
don't think what i have said can be considered ad hominem attacks because i did not attack a specific person and i did not criticize them in any area that was not relevant for this problem.
Ad hominem fallacies (whether deliberately rhetorical or errors) do not have to attack specific people. Misrepresenting someone's argument as 'paranoid and aggressive' (or that of more people), rather than explain what's happening, was designed to make the reader believe certain people are 'paranoid and aggressive' rather than merely incorrect in their argument. People, for all I know, may be acting reasonably in their objections, and you won't present the evidence needed to present a case that this is otherwise.
I'm not looking for a discussion here. I gave my input regarding Wakefield, just as i'm interested to read other people's inputs. I don't think just because someone is voicing an opinion that is different from someone elses there has to be a fight until someone is shut up. People should read the different viewpoints and make up their own minds.
But you not looking for a discussion is futile. You put your opinion in a forum, you might get a discussion!
Regarding the 'Dusty Miller blow-up'. I'm still trying to find out the exact details. What has interested me in the interim is that
allegedly, Dusty Miller accused a patient of probably believing in Cold Fusion, as a guilt by association ad hominem!
IF this is true (the smoke and mirrors problem that dogs all internet interaction seems to be particularly bad, with people claiming other people are Miller, Mikovits etc. so it might not be) then Miller's fallacy here is outrageous, and hardly likely to reassure people.
But - I would be interested in other people's careful analysis of what's been going on (I'm not interested in any "objectors are paranoid and aggressive memes". A summary of the argument would do!) I'd actually be grateful for a reasonable summary, it doesn't have to be completely neutral, just reasonable! If anyone can do that - thank you in advance.