First comment, screenshot of "likes", and screenshot of "loves":@AndyPR - can we get photo shots for evidence of AFME 'likes'
Comment 2 with likes as a pop-up:
Emily Beardall liked nearly every comment that Glen made.
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, 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.
First comment, screenshot of "likes", and screenshot of "loves":@AndyPR - can we get photo shots for evidence of AFME 'likes'
Given the history of the use of these words this is a cause for great concern for the community which we should not allow and should alert everyone to these disgraceful smears.
Or is that because they have received the most responses?
Essentially Facebook will try to show you what it thinks you will find most "interesting" and comments seem to be worth more in that equation than likes, although I have no idea what the comments to likes exchange rate is. So an unliked but heavily commented on post will generally be the first to be seen, over and above well liked posts that have no comments on them.So how do AFME decide which comments go to the top. Many comments with 20, 30, 40 likes a long way down but Emily B and Glen's comments right at the top as most relevant when they consistently have the least likes and are the most unpopular. Or is that because they have received the most responses? mostly disagreeing. So funny how they talk of minority and yet it is so glaringly obvious and evident that their views are by far the minority. Views are views and all valid and everyone entitled to them but they just look completely foolish going on the defensive calling the vast majority the vocal minority when they have virtually no support from other patients and only from Action for ME. They need to take a reality check.
Two months ago, an open letter to the journal Psychological Medicine, co-signed by a substantial number of scientists, and supported by patient organisations in the UK, US and Europe, asked that the journal retract its 2013 paper, Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial.
As reported by the New York Times, the journal has said it has “no plans to retract the study but is open to publishing a re-analysis of data in any papers it has published.” Therefore signing now will have no impact.
https://www.actionforme.org.uk/news/board-of-trustees-on-cbt-get-and-pace/
the field must move forward by bringing in new researchers, more funding for biomedical research, and more effective engagement with policy makers. The focus on the scientific debate around the PACE trial above all else is preventing this from happening.
As reported by the New York Times, the journal has said it has “no plans to retract the study but is open to publishing a re-analysis of data in any papers it has published.” Therefore signing now will have no impact.
I disagree with what I think they are saying here. The problem is that while PACE and those who back it remain influential in the UK we will just get more of the same; even if it were true biological research it would be poor quality, methodologically flawed, unethical research
'Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.'The focus on the scientific debate around the PACE trial above all else is preventing this from happening.
They could of course be saying that "The focus on the scientific debate around the PACE trial above all else is preventing this from happening." meaning that until PACE is accepted those who support it will ensure all applications to the MRC and NHIR will be blocked by reviewers. But that would take some political awareness from AfME and even then this is an attitude that should be publicly challenged.
Extracts below from letter to 'Mainstream Funders' accompanying the counter-petition Opposing MEGA:The focus on the scientific debate around the PACE trial above all else is preventing this from happening.
As the MEGA team have consistently refused to answer all questions about PACE, and are even relying on it for funding of current treatment trials, we submit that the MEGA applicants are attempting to build a research project on crumbling foundations and should receive no further funding under any guise.
Patients and professionals alike were misled over the PACE trial from its inception to the present day. Children are among the patients suffering daily from the consequences. We cannot afford as a civilised society to repeat nor perpetuate this mistake.
Thus, we submit this letter and Opposing MEGA petition, along with its comments, as an outright rejection of calls by CMRC/MEGA for mainstream research funding and request that you ensure this letter and content is brought to the attention of all personnel in your organisation with responsibility for research funding applications.