IVI, I can't quite believe your last post, as we've been over this stuff repeatedly, and given examples repeatedly.
I don’t know what “we've been over this stuff repeatedly” means – certainly I see the same set of fallacies being repeated – I don’t think that repetition makes them ay more acceptable.
Curer makes a specific proposition:
“the psychiatric model of ME is directly responsible for both this abuse and neglect, and the refusal to fund adequate medical research for over a generation.” Which comprises a statement of cause and effect(s)
cause = psychiatric model,
effect = a) abuse and neglect and b) refusal to fund adequate medical research . It is irrelevant who comes forward with testimony of abuse and neglect, because of itself that testimony can not provide evidence of the causal relationship that Curer is claiming in the case of abuse and neglect, and has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on the issue of research. Without evidence of causal linkage this is all so much story telling , so why should I or anyone else accept it at face value ?
Never mind evidence from third parties, many of us have got personal stories to share re the medical/welfare systems, as evidence of disinterest/neglect.
Even if we accept each other’s personal stories at face value (which is fine in a discussion about how dreadful our lives are) how does that resolve the
causal fallacy problem ? We are still left with argument of cause and effect that has no evidence of causal linkage. Anyone is entitled to believe in such a linkage, but propounding it as certain fact demands evidence.
And just look at how they are 'treating' children with LP, for an example of medical professionals acting totally inappropriately, and with utter ignorance.
Who is they ? And what has LP got to do with Curer’s argument ?
Again, we've been over this repeatedly. I refer you to the CDC, the MRC, and Jonathan Kerr.
Again, there is evidence of biomedical research being blocked by psychiatrists. (Refer to Jonathan Kerr.)
I still see no evidence of well formed research bids being refused . Curer identified the UK, which is what I was responding to, but I’m not aware of any sound proposal made in the US that has been refused funding. The Kerr case is way more complex than a simply issue of funding being turned down. Maybe Kerr was an innocent victim of Institutional politics, but it’s hardly routine for a whole department to get culled and the lead researcher leave her/his profession where there are no departmental failings involved. In any case there is no evidence that any well formed grant bid was refused, and even less that such a refusal was based on some pervading notion of an exclusive psychiatric model.
And why is there an issue with definitions? Because they've been ignored, or neglected, or perverted, or blocked (or all of these), over the past few decades, persistently. Research is still being carried out with the Oxford definition, and the CCC/ICC are only just starting to be used as experimental subsets.
If my memory is correct, attempts to use criteria other than NICE/Fukuda in biomedical research has been blocked by the MRC, in the past.
Again we are back to causal fallacy, even if your preferred definitions have been
ignored, neglected, perverted, or blocked, there is still a lack of evidence of causal linkage between the proposed ‘cause’ and the claimed outcome. I don’t actually know what you mean by the MRC ‘blocking’ anything – the process is for researchers to submit a proposal and the proposal is then peer reviewed. Choice of case definition or disease criteria would be entirely down to the applicant – except possibly in circumstances where the MRC invite applications that meet a particular research criteria.
I think this is insensitive of you, IVI.
So many of us have horror stories to tell about our experiences with the medical services.
But being treated well by both the medical system and the welfare system, can take an immense amount of pressure off patients, and can make a vast difference to the quality of a patient's life.
I've also seen this sort of attitude (that currer mentioned) on the forum, repeatedly. It's usually a subtle message, that comes about indirectly, as a result of nuanced arguments. And, as such, those making the comments may be unaware of the implications of their arguments/opinions. But sometimes they seem like quite direct accusations.
I have, numerous times, directly highlighted this sort of attitude, of placing blame on patients, but I don't do it every time I see it.
Insensitive to what ? Life’s crap, there’s pain and misery everywhere, but just how does that have any impact upon the claim that X leads to Y, and why is it unreasonable to ask for evidence of the claim. In this kind of question I’m not insensitive, I’m deliberately uninterested in solipsism. I have all the experience of illness, pain, financial challenges, unresponsive health care, oppressive state agencies etc, that I could ever need – but none of that provides me with evidence of X (
a psychiatric model) leading to Y (
abuse and neglect and refusal to fund adequate medical research).
Beyond that I’m at loss to understand what the issue is – this part of the forum isn’t about providing solace, there are surely enough venues either on PR or elsewhere to facilitate that. Are we really not going to ask hard questions because we all variously feel a bit delicate at times ? As to the ‘blaming patients’ – who, where how ? If I take that claim at face value all I can see is another fallacy, which seems to run “if the psychiatrists aren’t to blame, then it must be patients”.
IVI
take care.
