I still am daunted with trying to get a handle on this disease when there are so many sites...
Medfeb,
everyone feels as you do. With the internet, everyone has their own opinions. And without
healthy leadership from either the docs, who could have published a clean definition years ago, or a healthy and funded national patients group to organize us, I'm afraid the fragmentation is here to stay for a while. All I can suggest at this time is to deal with the individuals responsible (CDC, etc.), rather than the public, to demand a biologic stance. We don't have a unified authoritative view of the illness to give the public after all this time. As long as the CDC contradicts us, we are dead meat. There is our target.
http://www.cfidsreport.com/Articles/advocacyruts/integrationadvocacy.htm
I agree with Craig Maupin [which he says was written several years ago - history repeating again]; everyone should read this link and think very seriously about the consequences of further fragmentation.
but I burnt out and never ended up following things throu.
Don't feel bad, Taniaaust1; that is why medfeb and a healthy and funded organization are needed. We have proved over 20+ years that patients just can't do it with their current methods of polite letters, etc. I don't think we can get the many internet groups to unite, and maybe that's not bad. Until the CDC, our docs, etc., come out with an authoritative stand for a biologic basis, we all have our own ways of fighting for it.
That's why we suggested a single "communication service" to handle advocacy petitions. It is well within our reach for a couple of sick techies and a couple of sick but knowledgeable editors to forward petitions from the various groups and individuals, enabling a constant flow of opinion without killing the patients in the process. Anyone submits a petition/statement to this unaffiliated source, the editors check it, the techies send it, along with any other statements that week, to a subscribed list of people interested in advocacy; the recipients click on which statements they support and return their votes to the techies, who count the votes and forward the statement to the targeted person. Easy, quick, timely, targeted, international, and consistent communications with the authorities who have the responsibility to communicate the validity of our disease to the public and to our physicians. Would anyone volunteer?
Hillary Johnson has a new edition (2006) of Osler's Web. I suggested to Unger that she read it, but she obviously hasn't. Everyone needs to understand this background. It shows us why we must
stop writing long and exhausting letters and start attacking, realizing this is a war over political will, not an information campaign. This one step alone would free up a lot of patient time and energy.
Medfeb, you understand the history of the disease better than many foggy patients. You've seen the many efforts, the many - even overload of - well-written pieces on the internet, the abundance of good information about the biological basis of the disease, and the advocacy efforts to make it known. You have seen the variety of opinions, the disagreements, even nastiness of some. I hope one thing is clear: we need to change our advocacy direction and tactics! We must understand that this is a war, not an information campaign, and we must attack, not inform, the people driving public health policy who deny the science and just call us crazy and lazy. Anything you can do, that hasn't been done before, with a healthy brain and persistence, might be a turning point in this movement. That's how important you are. (If you scared easily, you wouldn't still be with us.)
You know we are with you.
Marty
P.S. Another idea for you, medfeb: a daily
News Sheet which reports the highlights of the day. Rather than all of us searching all the sites, one person searches and send us the highlights (with links). It would save
gobs of time and energy. It's on another thread, post #9:
http://forums.aboutmecfs.org/showth...ailing-list-for-petitions&p=152353#post152353