• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Another Stupid Study from the UK

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
But you do have this idea that people SHOULD do this or that I've noticed, and yes, Bearman's exhortations are excrutiating.
We can all have issues with people's styles, how people say things, etc. We could argue forever that what X says is the wrong way to say something and somebody else could say what Y said is the wrong way to say something. Or don't like what X says or Y says.

I say people should seriously consider it and give my reasons.
Somebody else may say somebody should seriously consider writing letters or whatever and give their reasons.

But your '1%' might just not be feasible, and your arguments may not persuade people who already have problems like the kind I've outlined.
I don't accept a lot of the points you made and have given my reasons. You don't have to accept them - that is your right. I don't have to accept what you say, and that is my right.
 

Angela Kennedy

Senior Member
Messages
1,026
Location
Essex, UK
Did I say nobody was in poverty? I said not everyone was in poverty (I suggest people check the first line). If you think everyone is in poverty we can argue that if you like.

We can also discuss the fact that people are "energy poor" and similar arguments could be made about suggesting people "donate their energy" to anything e.g. write letters to politicians or whatever.

You've misrepresented me here. I said I don't think you understand the level of poverty in the community. I didn't say everyone is in poverty. Indeed, people not in poverty may be giving to research. People in poverty may be giving as well.

But poverty is a real reason not to be able to give to research. And your manner on this issue has been dismissive. I'm reminding you of the level of deprivation in a community where getting welfare benefits if difficult, where being able to work is often impossible, where parents may not be rich or able to financially support sufferers, etc. where there is no support from siblings etc. because the sufferer has a devastating but trivialised illness.

ME/CFS sufferers in particular have 'multiple jeopardies' (see Deborah King on this) in their lives, that compound each other.

And yes, there is an awful amount of hectoring of the 'energy poor' (aka VERY sick people and people in deep adversity) as well that goes on while we are at it!
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
And yes, there is an awful amount of hectoring of the 'energy poor' (aka VERY sick people and people in deep adversity) as well that goes on while we are at it!
So given you accept this, is the solution to say that nobody should suggest anything to victims. That is why I want to hear your solutions. It is relevant to the discussion. One can criticise one proposal but another proposal can have many of the same problems.

Personally I think suggesting things people can do is useful giving reasons. But there is no compulsion.

You may perhaps think suggesting anything to victims is unfair?
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
I'm reminding you of the level of deprivation in a community where getting welfare benefits if difficult, where being able to work is often impossible, where parents may not be rich or able to financially support sufferers, etc. where there is no support from siblings etc. because the sufferer has a devastating but trivialised illness.
And I'm reminding people that not everyone is in this situation with no money and no relatives who might donate or fundraise.

And now (although I don't think this has come up in the thread) I am taking the opportunity to point out that things can be relative - people may not have as much money as when they worked but might, for example, be on an insurance policy which gives 50% or 66% of their income and some of these may have disposable income.

Do PWMEs and their families support no charitable causes? I don't think that is correct. Many do. I'm putting the case they consider supporting research without spending any money on advertising.
 

Angela Kennedy

Senior Member
Messages
1,026
Location
Essex, UK
So given you accept this, is the solution to say that nobody should suggest anything to victims. That is why I want to hear your solutions. It is relevant to the discussion. One can criticise one proposal but another proposal can have many of the same problems.

Personally I think suggesting things people can do is useful giving reasons. But there is no compulsion.

You may perhaps think suggesting anything to victims is unfair?


No. You can say what you like - I can't stop you.

But what I can do is raise legitimate objections to what you argue, which I've done.

By your logic, I shouldn't raise objections to the misrepresentation of people, because I'm suggesting no-one should say anything to victims?

We could go on like this all day.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
By your logic, I shouldn't raise objections to the misrepresentation of people, because I'm suggesting no-one should say anything to victims?
You've been active for a number of years. It seems to me it is likely you either have suggestions that you think you should people could consider doing (which I think is similar to suggesting people consider donating money as this is a request to donate energy from energy poor people) or you prefer not to make suggestions to victims.
I am pointing out that people can come up with lots of problems with solutions especially if they go into victimhood mode.
I also think that not making suggestions and we all do our own thing without giving reasons why we think it might help if other people try something similar isn't any better if one is focused on solutions.

We could go on like this all day.
We could indeed. I'm would prefer to concentrate on another project which doesn't involve making any suggestions to people.
 

Angela Kennedy

Senior Member
Messages
1,026
Location
Essex, UK
We could indeed. I'm going to concentrate on another project which doesn't involve making any suggestions to people.

Ok- now you are misrepresenting me again.

I've laid out why some people don't give to research, and my own objections to the hectoring of people to give to research that involves misrepresenting people who don't as recalcitrant, lazy, selfish idiots who are too busy spending their money (which they have enough of) on crazy treatments that don't help them. I've only touched briefly on some of the complex problems around patient funding of research, and a careful thread on this would uncover all sorts of issues around funding, around 'science' around patients enagement, around claims to objectivity etc. etc.

These are important issues that I think the community does need to get to grips with. I don't think we (patients, other advocates) are there yet.

I'm not happy actually with your trivialising of the issues in comments like the above.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
I've laid out why some people don't give to research
You don't know why people don't give to research. That is not likely to be a definitive list.

And I think it is relevant to point out that people can make lots of reasons not to give to charitable causes. On average the people who donated to the charitable cause helped more than people who came up with a reason not to give.

We could go on like this all day.
Dolphin said:
We could indeed. I'm going to concentrate on another project which doesn't involve making any suggestions to people.
I'm not happy actually with your trivialising of the issues in comments like the above.
That was meant to be an innocuous comment that I was trying to end the thread without either person having to continue. Perhaps I did not say it as well as I should have.

I just edited it before you posted (or at least your mail hadn't appeared in my inbox) in case people are confused - initially the post was just one line.
 

Angela Kennedy

Senior Member
Messages
1,026
Location
Essex, UK
You've been active for a number of years. It seems to me it is likely you either have suggestions that you think you should people could consider doing (which I think is similar to suggesting people consider donating money as this is a request to donate energy from energy poor people) or you prefer not to make suggestions to victims.
I am pointing out that people can come up with lots of problems with solutions especially if they go into victimhood mode.
I also think that not making suggestions and we all do our own thing without giving reasons why we think it might help if other people try something similar isn't any better if one is focused on solutions.

We could indeed. I'm would prefer to concentrate on another project which doesn't involve making any suggestions to people.

Hang on there. What do you mean by 'victimhood mode'? Is that really how you see people who cannot or will not give to research?

I can make suggestions all I like. But if there are problems in what I suggest, then people bring them up - or at least, they should. And this is what I've done to your 'suggestions' here. Or is that going into 'victimhood mode' (whatever that means???)

I'm amazed at that victimhood comment. Absolutely gobsmacked.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
What do you mean by 'victimhood mode'? Is that really how you see people who cannot or will not give to research?
That was an attempt to characterise what it appears are some of the points in this discussion i.e. "Don't suggest to people to donate because many are in poverty." "Victimhood mode" would also include not suggesting possible solutions. People such as the ME community are victims so it is unfair to make suggestions to them.
Given you haven't made suggestions about what you think people could be doing, I'm characterising what you are doing as being in "victimhood mode".

I'm amazed at that victimhood comment. Absolutely gobsmacked.
And I was amazed at your comment in this message: http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...dy-from-the-UK&p=122580&viewfull=1#post122580 . Absolutley gobsmacked. When people say things like that, don't be surprised when the other person argues back.
 

Angela Kennedy

Senior Member
Messages
1,026
Location
Essex, UK
That was an attempt to characterise what it appears are some of the points in this discussion i.e. "Don't suggest to people to donate because many are in poverty." "Victimhood mode" would also include not suggesting possible solutions. People such as the ME community are victims so it is unfair to make suggestions to them.
Given you haven't made suggestions about what you think people could be doing, I'm characterising what you are doing as being in "victimhood mode".

And I was amazed at your comment in this message: http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...dy-from-the-UK&p=122580&viewfull=1#post122580 . Absolutley gobsmacked. When people say things like that, don't be surprised when the other person argues back.

Ok - so you ad hominem someone who raises legitimate objections as 'going into victimhood mode'. Anyone who raise problems with what you think is the way forward is going into victimhood mode basically. That makes no sense whatsoever.

Then you show a link to this thread. With comments that make no sense.

This is not rational argument.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Anyone who raise problems with what you think is the way forward is going into victimhood mode basically.
No. It relates to the fact that you haven't given any alternatives despite plenty of opportunities. Instead telling us about the difficulties people have. Not solution-focused.

As I have said, some of the same points you have made appear to me to be relevant to any suggestions people might make as people are time/energy poor.

Then you show a link to this thread. With comments that make no sense.
Telling me that I don't understand the level of poverty people are in is insulting in my eyes. I was gobsmacked as it wasn't a premise of my argument. My argument isn't that everyone is in a position to give.
Lots of people can take offense about what other people who don't agree with them say. I imagine this can go on all night - you take offense at what I said, I'll take offense about what you said. What fun. :( Especially as by this stage, most people will probably have given up - except maybe a few who have strong views on one side or another.
I would much prefer to spend my energy either doing something else or hearing other people's solutions.
 
Messages
13,774
Personally, I think it's better to give money to ME research organisations than to spend it on whatever new supplement's been touted this month. But I also agree with the points Angela raised about the limits of the work done by these groups... which is probably why my main way of donating is by going through this amazon link (http://www.meresearch.org.uk/support/shopping.html) whenever I choose to spend my money on CDs and other frivolities (a better use of my funds than either supplements or direct charitable donations!).

Before I got DLA I was too broke for any such spending, and gave no money to ME charities - I didn't feel guilty about that though. I felt annoyed I didn't have any moeny for fun stuff.
 

Angela Kennedy

Senior Member
Messages
1,026
Location
Essex, UK
No. It relates to the fact that you haven't given any alternatives despite plenty of opportunities. Instead telling us about the difficulties people have. Not solution-focused.

As I have said, some of the same points you have made appear to me to be relevant to any suggestions people might make as people are time/energy poor.

Telling me that I don't understand the level of poverty people are in is insulting in my eyes. I was gobsmacked as it wasn't a premise of my argument. My argument isn't that everyone are in a position to give.
Lots of people can take offense about what other people who don't agree with them say. I imagine this can go on all night.

But I don't think you do understand the level of poverty in the ME/CFS population. You've consistently downplayed this particular issue over the years- treated it as an irrelevance. You can take insult if you like - it wasn't meant that way. There's no shame in not understanding the level of poverty in a situation - most people don't. I didn't. But I really do not think you are aware of some of the deprivations affecting the community (or possibly around poverty in general), and I would ask you to consider researching this for your information.

However, you well know 'victimhood mode' is a way of denoting that you think people who disagree with your 'solution' are playing a victim, usually manipulatively, or have some personal need to be a 'victim'. It's rather classic ad hominem, it plays on psychiatric misrepresentations of people, and either way, it's deliberately placed to place my motivations in a bad (and wholly incorrect) light.

The points I'm making about money are EXACTLY the same as 'energy poor'. People are exhorted to chase their tails and criticised when they can't, or they think the proposed solution is futile, or problematic.

Your "if you can't give solutions you can't raise objections" argument is a false premise. It's a red herring. Identifying problems is the first step towards finding solutions. If everyone who didn't have a solution didn't dare raise a problem (which is where your logic has taken this!), AIDS research would never progress for one thing! AIDS wouldn't have even been identified. All the scientists would fear to raise the problem because they weren't 'solution-focused' because they didn't know how to cure it...!

And your own 'solution' is problematic. No other way around it.

But, in your scenario, the saviour of solutions meets the victim role adopter. Amazing.
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
Min wrote:

...Only MEResearch UK and Invest in ME seem to be using the Canadian Consensus Criteria to select patients with ME, & to avoid researching people with vaguely defined ME.


Min, I'm a bit confused about what you mean here. It suggests that Invest in ME conducts research.

Invest in ME hold an annual conference, undertake advocacy and have made donations towards research carried out by others (I think they made a donation one year to ME Research UK).

Earlier this year, Invest in ME diverted funding that had already been raised for the aborted XMRV study by Dr Kerr and Dr Amolak Bansal (in a shared fundraising effort with ME Solutions for whom Dr Bansal is "Scientific Adviser") towards the WPI UK blood draws.

But Invest in ME is not a research organisation, itself, so I'm not really sure what you mean where you say "...Invest in ME seem to be using the Canadian Consensus Criteria to select patients with ME..."

Suzy
 
Messages
26
And I'm reminding people that not everyone is in this situation with no money and no relatives who might donate or fundraise.

And now (although I don't think this has come up in the thread) I am taking the opportunity to point out that things can be relative - people may not have as much money as when they worked but might, for example, be on an insurance policy which gives 50% or 66% of their income and some of these may have disposable income.

Do PWMEs and their families support no charitable causes? I don't think that is correct. Many do. I'm putting the case they consider supporting research without spending any money on advertising.

But then why are people who can donate not doing so? We often refer to ourselves as a community but apart from being united in wanted a cure, that is the only area that I can think of that we are really united on, yet still large sums are not being given over and it seems to be that the main reasons for this has to lie with the research charities themselves. The community are clearly not convinced by them. I dont give to any UK group for that reason.
 

Min

Guest
Messages
1,387
Location
UK
Min wrote:




Min, I'm a bit confused about what you mean here. It suggests that Invest in ME conducts research.

Invest in ME hold an annual conference, undertake advocacy and have made donations towards research carried out by others (I think they made a donation one year to ME Research UK).

Earlier this year, Invest in ME diverted funding that had already been raised for the aborted XMRV study by Dr Kerr and Dr Amolak Bansal (in a shared fundraising effort with ME Solutions for whom Dr Bansal is "Scientific Adviser") towards the WPI UK blood draws.

But Invest in ME is not a research organisation, itself, so I'm not really sure what you mean where you say "...Invest in ME seem to be using the Canadian Consensus Criteria to select patients with ME..."

Suzy

http://www.investinme.org/IIME Campaigning-Can Do Biomedical Research Fund.htm

"For some while we have been thinking that we need to try to attract more funding which we can direct toward biomedical research - research which can be performed without the constraints or influence of a powerful psychosocial lobby which still influences MRC policy

The Invest in ME Biomedical Research Fund

This will be used for the following -

*

Biomedical Research into ME
*

Education Regarding ME
*

Conferences related to ME
*

Expenses in Sponsoring Presenters to Speak at Conferences
*

Cost of sponsoring PhD students performing biomedical research into ME
*

Set up and running of ME Clinic treating severely affected patients with ME
*

Assisting with equipment and other costs of researchers performing purely biomedical research into ME"