*2 new* letters, Myra McClue, Annette Whittemore

[Knackered]

Its not because Gerwyn is presenting the wrong facts - its not because at times she is very aggressive in her posts. This is not rocket science. This is not an attack against Gerwyn. This is a problem for the moderators who are committed to having an even tone on the Forums and have to deal with complaints about that. This is a fixable (although not necessarily easy) issue. We had one person state they were leaving the Forums on this thread and another, to my impression, suggest that they might be.

Gerwyn's a male name and he's a man Cort.

[video=youtube;SjxY9rZwNGU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjxY9rZwNGU[/video]

WOMEN, KNOW YOUR LIMITS! :worried:

 

[oerganix]

Thanks Knackered, I thought that vid was on point. I wasn't going to go there, but I have often thought that some of the attacks on Gerwyn are because some think he is a woman who doesn't "know her place". Like some of our heroines? Like calling Dr Mikovits "shrill"...a name I've never heard directed at a man.

Like she-who-doesn't-deserve-to-be-named calling Annette Whittemore, CEO of WPI, a "housewife", inferring she should just sit down and shut up? She was invited to speak before Congress on the subject of CFS as long ago as 2005; inferences that she and/or WPI are just in it for the money are simply unsupportable by the facts. The idea that, as CEO of WPI she shouldn't have the right to challenge McClure's negative statements in her 'research' paper and her very public editorial in the BMJ is absurd. If one must call her response a political one, then one should be able to notice that the initial provocation from McClure was a political one. Since the BMJ isn't going to publish Whittemore's response, it's entirely appropriate that she should issue a public communication/response of her own.

To those persons threatening to leave the forum because of Gerwyn's posts, I say "adios and good luck"; it's manipulation. We can all ignore posters we don't want to read and we can ignore threads we don't like. I would especially encourage the WPI bashers and negative rumor mongers to just not engage in threads that are discussing WPIs work if the enthusiasm of their supporters irritates you so much.

You can't 'save' us from our 'false' hope because some of us know that hope is a positive emotion and cannot be false, even if what we hope for doesn't turn out to be all we wanted it to be. Try to understand that 'false' hope is better than no hope at all, at least to those of us who think positively.

Grinding away at the reputations of WPI, Whittemore and WPI's researchers isn't going to work this time around.

 

[Advocate]

Hi oerganix,

I appreciate your brilliant post.

I, too, noticed that Cort referred to Gerwyn as "she," and wondered how Gerwyn felt about that. Is that what you would call "outing?" On another thread, recently, a moderator was so protective of someone's identity--someone who is not even a member of this forum--that she removed parts of several posts.

I, too, have noticed the sexist put-downs of Judy Mikovits and Annette Whittemore by those who would "save us from our false hope."

Advocate

 

[gracenote]

I would just like to offer another opinion. For a while, I was also a little distressed by some of Gerwyn's posts. I wasn't able to follow the arguments, so I wasn't understanding the provocation. I was thinking and hoping Gerwyn would chill. It wasn't until it was explained in detail that I started understanding Gerwyn's reactions. I might have been (though I was not) one of those forum members who reported those strong posts, not in order to silence Gerwyn, but in hopes of having more useful discussions. I don't think all of us have been aware of some of the underhanded attacks that went on as they were done in a "polite" way. I myself just didn't "get it" for quite awhile. It might be good not to second guess the forum members who reported these posts, who may have done so out of concern for the health of this forum. For a group of people with cognitive challenges, we do remarkably well.

Gerwyn, I value your incredible contribution to the science knowledge here. I am always looking forward to reading your comments.

And as Koan would say,

Peace out.

 

[oerganix]

Hi oerganix,

I appreciate your brilliant post.

I, too, noticed that Cort referred to Gerwyn as "she," and wondered how Gerwyn felt about that. Is that what you would call "outing?" On another thread, recently, a moderator was so protective of someone's identity--someone who is not even a member of this forum--that she removed parts of several posts.

I, too, have noticed the sexist put-downs of Judy Mikovits and Annette Whittemore by those who would "save us from our false hope."

And again, I agree with you when you say, "To those persons threatening to leave the forum because of Gerwyn's posts, I say 'adios and good luck'."

Advocate

Thanks Advocate.

Gerwyn's profile indicates that he is a 'househusband' and his wife is an angel, so this is not an 'outing' of him. I suspect he finds it amusing that some call him 'she', as he has never corrected it. I admit, not knowing Welsh names, I thought he was a 'she' at first, too, just by the name.

The more important issue of sexist prejudices in relationship to CFS remains. I won't add quotes here, but both the CDC and the UK/psychobabblers have made statements indicating their disdain for this 'hysterical' illness, one that women have the audacity to contract more often than men, and adding an extra dollop of disdain for those men who contract this 'woman's' illness.

Isn't it ironic that for our government, CFS is under the umbrella of Women's Health and at the same time some research is being anticipated from the Malevolent Outcomes Diseases lab? (Sorry, that name isn't exactly it, but whatever it was that Dr Unger, ACTING head of CDC, said at the last CFSAC meeting.)

 

[Otis]

Hi oerganix,

I appreciate your brilliant post.

I, too, noticed that Cort referred to Gerwyn as "she," and wondered how Gerwyn felt about that. Is that what you would call "outing?" On another thread, recently, a moderator was so protective of someone's identity--someone who is not even a member of this forum--that she removed parts of several posts.

I, too, have noticed the sexist put-downs of Judy Mikovits and Annette Whittemore by those who would "save us from our false hope."

And again, I agree with you when you say, "To those persons threatening to leave the forum because of Gerwyn's posts, I say 'adios and good luck'."

Advocate

Cort made an honest mistake with Gerwyn's gender. He recently asked the admins/mods and the consensus was that Gerwyn was female. I didn't know myself, I'm not familiar the name. Not all misstatements are malicious and Cort wasn't trying to "out" Gerwyn.

I do appreciate that gender bias occurs and that it has and continues to hurt our cause (as but one example)

Otis (admin)

 

[oerganix]

Cort made an honest mistake with Gerwyn's gender. He recently asked the admins/mods and the consensus was that Gerwyn was female. I didn't know myself, I'm not familiar the name. Not all misstatements are malicious and Cort wasn't trying to "out" Gerwyn.

I do appreciate that gender bias occurs and that it has and continues to hurt our cause (as but one example)

Otis (admin)

Chuckle, chuckle. Is gender now ascertained by 'concensus'? Why not just check his profile?

Oerganix... wondering what the concensus on my gender would be, if it wasn't already known?

 

[Otis]

Point taken Organix. :Retro smile: It was in the context of another conversation, but yes checking the profile would have the correct thing to do.

The real point I wanted to make was that Cort's mistake wasn't a malicious "outing" of Gerwyn.

 

[oerganix]

Point taken Organix. :Retro smile: It was in the context of another conversation, but yes checking the profile would have the correct thing to do.

The real point I wanted to make was that Cort's mistake wasn't a malicious "outing" of Gerwyn.

You're right. I may debate Cort pretty often, but I've never thought he was malicious. (Can't say the same for everyone here...but that's another story...)

 

[Advocate]

Point taken Organix. :Retro smile: It was in the context of another conversation, but yes checking the profile would have the correct thing to do.

The real point I wanted to make was that Cort's mistake wasn't a malicious "outing" of Gerwyn.

Thanks, Otis. I'm glad you cleared that up.

Advocate

 

[DysautonomiaXMRV]

RE: *2 new* letters, Myra McClure, Annette Whittemore.

Hi. Did the Myra Mclure and Judy M meeting happen yet please? Didn't we read somewhere a while back they're going to the same meeting?
Isn't there a big meeting everyone's going to who is into retrovirology? (Presumably retrovirology conference something, and not owl spotting conference something).

Presumably it doesn't matter much if Judy M sits next to Myra C anymore.

Re: this letter she wrote to Annete Whittemore. Myra McClure stated she has no interest whatsoever about XMRV in CFS and thus is presumably going to this virus conference to judge ladies fashion for summer 2010 'look'. (I hope she doesn't confuse designer clutch handbags for winter fashion or they'll be big trouble for the model community in Aspen this fall). I can predict the headlines now, ''We are quite confident there are no clutch handbags in Apsen, if there were - we would have found them''. Meanwhile, all the 6ft models freeze to death. How ironic.

 

[Lily]

RE: *2 new* letters, Myra McClure, Annette Whittemore.

Hi. Did the Myra Mclure and Judy M meeting happen yet please? Didn't we read somewhere a while back they're going to the same meeting?
Isn't there a big meeting everyone's going to who is into retrovirology? (Presumably retrovirology conference something, and not owl spotting conference something).

Presumably it doesn't matter much if Judy M sits next to Myra C.
Re: this letter she wrote to Annete Whittemore. Myra McClure stated she has no interest whatsoever about XMRV in CFS and thus is presumably going to this conference to judge hair styles
and designer handbags for summer 2010 'look'. (I hope she doesn't confuse clutch handbags for rucksack winter fashion or they'll be big trouble for the model community in Aspen this fall).

:tear::tear::tear::tear: Oh how I have missed you, Dys!

 

[eric_s]

Chuckle, chuckle. Is gender now ascertained by 'concensus'? Why not just check his profile?

Oerganix... wondering what the concensus on my gender would be, if it wasn't already known?

I had to google too, to find it out. And even then i wasn't sure, because some names like Andrea or Maria (at least as a middle name) can be both.
I got you wrong too, Oerganix. Oohh, now i feel bad that i was a bit aggressive against you at some point. But we cleared this up in pm.
I'm sure Nicaragua is cool, i will go to Spain in June again, and i have been there 5 or 6 times since last fall. The weather here in Switzerland is just too bad. For all Europeans, if you can make the trip, Valencia, Alicante or Malaga are worth going. Winter exists there too, but an average day in January or February is around 16 or 17 degrees and there's sunshine.

 

[Gerwyn]

Gerwyn knows that all she has a propensity to make cutting comments at times and we, as moderators, hear about it.


Just for the record Cort i have never questioned anyones qualifications.If you care to check my qualifications were always questioned first.By KURT and ERIC as I recall.I recieve a lot more cutting comments than i make.i dont pose as something I am not!



It is fine to point out errors; please do not point them out in a belittling or condescending manner - do not question peoples intelligence or motives. IF everyone treats each with respect we can have fantastic conversations about all areas under the sun. Let's let the debates continue.



Please debate the posts on the facts not on their ulterior motives - of which quite frankly none of us has any idea or any way of finding out. For one thing its difficult to know where to stop.... If you think someone is simply being disruptive and rude please communicate that to the moderators otherwise please DO NOT bring conspiracy theories regarding forum members into the conversation.



Here's my assessment - questioning facts is fine, questioning Gerwyn ability to comment and qualifications is questionable altho I would note that Gerwyn has certainly done that in the past . Overall I think questioning qualifications is dangerous - things can go south quickly - and its better not to do it. I encourage people not to do that - things get personal too quickly.

We can have it all you know - Gerwyn's curiosity and interest and informed ideas and discussions that don't get personal and turn into pissing contests. Lets just resolve to have it all.

Please debate the posts on the facts not on their ulterior motives - of which quite frankly none of us has any idea or any way of finding out. For one thing its difficult to know where to stop.... If you think someone is simply being disruptive and rude please communicate that to the moderators otherwise please DO NOT bring conspiracy theories regarding forum members into the conversation.

Just for the record Cort i have never questioned anyones qualifications.If you care to check my qualifications were always questioned first.By KURT and ERIC as I recall.I recieve a lot more cutting comments than i make.i dont pose as something I am not!

I challenge people pretending that they are presenting facts when they are not.It would be nice if certain people stopped talking pissing rubbish then we could have it all!

 

[Mark]

Note that I abstained in the vote on Gerwyn's gender and would of course need to see evidence in order to reach a firm conclusion. I am not overly concerned by the matter and I don't think a members poll is appropriate on this question.

I too see an element of gender politics in the dynamics of some of the scientific clashes, one need only observe some of the language to see that. I also see that the BMA has said that homeopathy is witchcraft and Bad Science have said that we make ourselves look foolish when we describe the case against Sr Sarah Myhill as a "witch-hunt" (in a petition signed by thousands). Without repeating one of the constant refrains to be heard on Bad Science here (we are much more genteel), let's just say the gender dynamicis are often apparent.

Also, I have been on the same journey gracenote described, I have seen what look like little sideswipes and wind-ups that have not gone reported, and are harder and subtler to identify, sometimes; but as has been said many times, we need to have those things reported, and I've also suggested that Gerwyn do that more often in these circumstances.

 

[eric_s]

Just for the record Cort i have never questioned anyones qualifications.If you care to check my qualifications were always questioned first.By KURT and ERIC as I recall.I recieve a lot more cutting comments than i make.i dont pose as something I am not!

I challenge people pretending that they are presenting facts when they are not.It would be nice if certain people stopped talking pissing rubbish then we could have it all!

Yes, i had asked you about that. But is that so astonishing, if someone makes statements like yours? You seem very, very convinced of the things you say and if someone acts like that, i'd like to know how he can be so sure. I think it's a totally legitimate question, if someone calls professors "idiots", "scientifically illiterate" etc. That means you see yourself as smarter than them (or them as being dishonest). In my language we call that "to lean far out of the window". I hope i did not make many cutting comments, and if you have read that, once i even apologized to you for something i've said.
But seriously, i don't think you can say things like "p*ing rubbish" on a message board. It's up to the owners to decide of course, but what do you expect?? Maybe in your country that's normal, i don't know, but in many places around the world people don't accept to be talked to in this way.
I'm not here to fight but i will also state my opinion. And you seem to have a problem with people who see things differently than you.

 

[Gerwyn]

Yes, i had asked you about that. But is that so astonishing, if someone makes statements like yours? You seem very, very convinced of the things you say and if someone acts like that, i'd like to know how he can be so sure. I think it's a totally legitimate question, if someone calls professors "idiots", "scientifically illiterate" etc. That means you see yourself as smarter than them (or them as being dishonest). In my language we call that "to lean far out of the window". I hope i did not make many cutting comments, and if you have read that, once i even apologized to you for something i've said.
But seriously, i don't think you can say things like "p*ing rubbish" on a message board. It's up to the owners to decide of course, but what do you expect?? Maybe in your country that's normal, i don't know, but in many places around the world people don't accept to be talked to in this way.
I'm not here to fight but i will also state my opinion. And you seem to have a problem with people who see things differently than you.

you were rude.i have problem with someone challenging scientific fact who is not a scientist.I used the same word as Cort.I did not call them idiots or scientifically illiterate merely that they were behaving as such.if you can suggest alternative interpretations feel free.My opinion is based on my knowledge of Microbiology .yours is not it is not informed opinion.That is the point i make repeatedly

 

[eric_s]

you were rude.i have problem with someone challenging scientific fact who is not a scientist.I used the same word as Cort.I did not call them idiots or scientifically illiterate merely that they were behaving as such.if you can suggest alternative interpretations feel free.My opinion is based on my knowledge of Microbiology .yours is not it is not informed opinion.That is the point i make repeatedly

Please tell me when i was rude. I was never even looking to have a discussion with you, but you replied to one of my postings in a way that i found offensive.
For someone who uses the terms you use, you seem pretty sensitive as soon as you have to take some heat yourself. Of course we also come from different cultures, so we might see different things as offensive or rude.

i have problem with someone challenging scientific fact who is not a scientist

I think that's a pretty arrogant attitude. I have never claimed to have knowledge in biology, apart from basic knowledge. I've always made this clear. According to your thinking CFS patients who are no MDs would not be allowed to challenge what their doctors tell them. I guess many here would not be happy about that.
I wonder, if we would collect all the "scientific fact" that you publish here and then have it checked for being true or not, what percentage of it would be true. I would never contest that you have detailed knowledge in microbiology, but noone knows everything or is free from making mistakes.

 

[Gerwyn]

Please tell me when i was rude. I was never even looking to have a discussion with you, but you replied to one of my postings in a way that i found offensive.
For someone who uses the terms you use, you seem pretty sensitive as soon as you have to take some heat yourself. Of course we also come from different cultures, so we might see different things as offensive or rude.

I think that's a pretty arrogant attitude. I have never claimed to have knowledge in biology, apart from basic knowledge. I've always made this clear. According to your thinking CFS patients who are no MDs would not be allowed to challenge what their doctors tell them. I guess many here would not be happy about that.
I wonder, if we would collect all the "scientific fact" that you publish here and then have it checked for being true or not, what percentage of it would be true. I would never contest that you have detailed knowledge in microbiology, but noone knows everything or is free from making mistakes.

You were rude in asking for my qualifications however you try and justify your answers.

Your actions are actually equivalent to a patient thinking they can make a better diagnosis than a doctor who is trained to make a diagnosis when they based on no medical knowledge whatsoever are not.

That is what I would call being arrogant

As you say you have no knowledge of biology whatsoever let alone specialist knowledge in this area. Anyone can indeed make mistakes.I don't claim I cant.Someone with knowledge in a particular field ,however,is much more likely to be accurate than someone with no knowledge whatsoever.

You are very welcome to check the facts Eric .it would make a refreshing change.

I don't know of any scientist who does not have problems with people repeating unfounded opinions relating to a particular scientific field.

If repeated often enough and with enough vigour untrained people begin to accept groundless opinion as fact.

Everyone then starts drowning in a sea of misinformation and the science gets obscured by mythology.

The mistake that scientists have made is not challenging purveyors of groundless opinion early on to prevent said opinion doing damage in the first place

 

[jace]

Kind of like the way the theories of Sharpe, Calder, Wessely et al have been allowed to take over mainstream medical thinking on ME/CFS in the UK....