• Phoenix Rising needs funds to operate: please consider donating to support PR

Project ENOUGH!!!

Messages
1,471
Likes
5
Location
UK
Aside from the practical aspect that I am simply too sick to engage in another forum, my concern has been that having a group formed to be "against" something (whether the CDC, CAA, etc.) is not going to be as productive as a forum that is "for" something. Now, I'm being unfair here because I have not looked at the other forum but I guess my style is more aimed towards inclusion rather than exclusion. I do know however that social movements usually take a variety of tactics from conservative to radical to work.
I understand what you are saying about a positive outlook.

However, what is conservative or radical is always relative. Currently patients are fighting for their rights, but these will not be achieved without tackling certain organisations. It is, after all, those organisations which are preventing research and treatment. It is all well and good to say you stand for something, you must define your position. But who are you talking to?

Simply, you must be against something if you want something.
 

SOC

Senior Member
Messages
7,849
Likes
16,359
I am relatively new to ME/CFS Forums,
but this is how it works over there:

We disagree on EVERYTHING and tear each other in to pieces,
until we are ALL completely confused.
Than "The big boss" comes in, that's AWOL
she calls in the super high IQ army.
They sort EVERYTHING out and have it under control.
(Exempt, the super IQ top boss seems to have always problems with his crappy computer and
another seems to hit the bold option allllllways in the wrong moment)
Anyway, than , well than we have a big group hug
and EVERYTHING IS FIIIIIINEEE !

Real good team work!
Dear me! It sounds like way more mental and emotional energy expended over there than I can afford. :Retro smile:

As Hope123 said, "... my style is more aimed towards inclusion rather than exclusion. I do know however that social movements usually take a variety of tactics from conservative to radical to work."

Good luck to you all. I hope you achieve your goals.
 

jspotila

Senior Member
Messages
1,099
Likes
778
jspotila,

I did not say that you said or believed the CAA enabled the CDC. It is clear I said that many believe the CAA enables the CDC.

"The CAA works to expose, protest and correct CDC's misguided CFS research program".

These are your exact words from your last post so I cant see how you can say I have taken you out of context. It appears that you are confirming that the CDC has a misguided CFS program. Please can you give us some major bullet points on how the CDC program is misguided and ask Suzanne Vernon and Kim Mclearly to put their names to the statement and pass it onto the press.
For starters:

The Association's position on the CDC program and empirical definition: http://cfids.org/cfidslink/2010/010607.asp#2a

The Association's efforts re: the recent revisions to the CDC's website on CFS: "The CFS pages of the CDC's web site were updated in late July and the updates have drawn negative attention and deep concern about information presented to the public and the health care community. The CFIDS Association and other organizations have contacted several CDC staff in an effort to reshape the site to reflect a broader knowledge base and greater accuracy. Updates will follow."
 

Levi

Senior Member
Messages
188
Likes
29
Operant conditioning

There are too few collective resources to allow for these types of internal conflicts among CFS/ME/CFIDS supporters. What is needed now is consensus rather than finger pointing. No one really knows why the CDC does what it does. It just does. In my book, any support org like CAA may be forgiven for trying to work along with the CDC and get results. It least for a decade or two.

Here is one possible explanation; the powers that be at the CDC have by complete accident been operantly conditioned to react to any explanation for an organic basis to ME/CFS/CFIDS as an intrusion upon their authority, and they react with aggression to any possible evidence that their psychological construct for the disease is wrong.

See ground breaking research at http://www.physorg.com/news119535403.html which shows that aggression triggers a reward mechanism as strong as food, sex or drugs of abuse:

For the experiments, a pair of mice - one male, one female - was kept in one cage and five intruder” mice were kept in a separate cage. The female mouse was temporarily removed, and an intruder mouse was introduced in its place, triggering an aggressive response by the “home” male mouse. Aggressive behavior included tail rattle, an aggressive sideways stance, boxing and biting.

The home mouse was then trained to poke a target with its nose to get the intruder to return, at which point it again behaved aggressively toward it. The home mouse consistently poked the trigger, which was presented once a day, indicating it experienced the aggressive encounter with the intruder as a reward.

These poor scientists have been unwittingly conditioned over time to act as they do and publish these aggressive and unbalanced CFS research articles. After 4,800 of them, they can no longer help themselves. They have become dopamine junkies.

It is quite possible that CBT may be needed to correct these behavioral anomalies, and I posit that the CAA will be instrumental in the future in helping to arrange treatment for the most severely afflicted CDC researchers.
 

being

Senior Member
Messages
14
Likes
0
Regarding how the CAA has and continues to challenge the CDC's CFS research program; here are some really good examples. The first is the CAA's response to the CDC's proposed 5 year plan; it's a real doozy. The second is Kim McCleary's testimony to the CFSAC regarding CDC's wasteful spending practices, which is also a pretty damn good piece of advocacy, and the third is a page on the CAA's website that includes these and other links re: CAA opposing CDC.

Also on his blog Cort highlights and summarizes various CAA responses to CDC projects and proposals including the ones mentioned above/linked to below; in the archives there are at least half a dozen really good posts on the subject. A lot of them are located around the beginning/mid 2009. Again, really good stuff- http://blog.aboutmecfs.org/

CFIDS Association Response to CDC’s Research Plan
http://www.cfids.org/temp/research-plan-response.pdf

October 2008 Testimony by Kim McCleary at the Federal CFS Advisory Committee meeting
http://www.cfids.org/advocacy/testimony-mccleary-oct2008.pdf

Advocates Respond to CDC’s Research Plan
http://www.cfids.org/cfidslink/2009/070108.asp
 
Messages
417
Likes
0
A general point:

I would like to see acknowledgement on forums that not all members, active or currently inactive are "sick people".

A proportion of members will be partners, relatives and carers of adults, young people and children who are too unwell to participate in forum discussions or take part in campaigning and who rely on advocates to represent their interests.

Suzy
Suzy, yes we genuinely appreciate these healthy advocates and wish there were more. Thanks for your point.
 
Messages
417
Likes
0
There are too few collective resources to allow for these types of internal conflicts among CFS/ME/CFIDS supporters. What is needed now is consensus rather than finger pointing. No one really knows why the CDC does what it does. It just does. In my book, any support org like CAA may be forgiven for trying to work along with the CDC and get results. It least for a decade or two.

Here is one possible explanation; the powers that be at the CDC have by complete accident been operantly conditioned to react to any explanation for an organic basis to ME/CFS/CFIDS as an intrusion upon their authority, and they react with aggression to any possible evidence that their psychological construct for the disease is wrong.

See ground breaking research at http://www.physorg.com/news119535403.html which shows that aggression triggers a reward mechanism as strong as food, sex or drugs of abuse:




These poor scientists have been unwittingly conditioned over time to act as they do and publish these aggressive and unbalanced CFS research articles. After 4,800 of them, they can no longer help themselves. They have become dopamine junkies.

It is quite possible that CBT may be needed to correct these behavioral anomalies, and I posit that the CAA will be instrumental in the future in helping to arrange treatment for the most severely afflicted CDC researchers.
love it Levi!
 

aruschima

I know nothing
Messages
113
Likes
1
Location
Global
Added info on ME/CFS Forum

Ajj, I forget something,

The boss Awol, is slightly OCD ,
She is all about protocol and procedure
She is really good in organizing!

I am the rebel (if you did not get it by now)
I question every thing and every one,
Go undercover and :cool:
Talk in riddles and Morse code.
Very few get me,
Ergo, I always need translation
 
Messages
417
Likes
0
I have to admit that even after flex's translation I still don't understand aruschima's post, however it does seem to be humorous. I will leave it there. As for the bigger theme of antagonism on the forum:

First of all, all forums have antagonism. Phoenix Rising seems very prone to plants and trolls, and has chosen a moderation style that some object to. The agressiveness here is itself quite distateful and a waste of energy for many people. The forum where Project ENOUGH!!! is being coordinated is quite probably less friendly to the CAA (people are disgruntled), and less willing to give the benefit of doubt to the CDC than this one. However there, the moderation style is different. Noone is prohibited from participating in both, however it should be known that each has its culture.

Dear me! It sounds like way more mental and emotional energy expended over there than I can afford. :Retro smile:

As Hope123 said, "... my style is more aimed towards inclusion rather than exclusion. I do know however that social movements usually take a variety of tactics from conservative to radical to work."

Good luck to you all. I hope you achieve your goals.
 

aruschima

I know nothing
Messages
113
Likes
1
Location
Global
Awol

no, but i am kidding, it is humorous and meant in a very loving way .
See , i do need translation!

Flexi , where are you ?

I also suffer a complete disrespect for authorities, in general .....
Forgot to add that as well.
 
Messages
304
Likes
2
Location
London area
hi Jspotila,

do you sometimes feel aggrieved by the inner circle of party politics as a volunteer for the CAA who appears to be doing her best. No organisation is beyond justiflable critism from either the inside or the outside on the basis of cherry picking valuable contributions they may have made. This is like commending a government whom have masacared thousands of innocent men women and children in Iraq on a false war premise because they happened to give money to tsunami victims in Thailand.

So exactly why is it that so many experienced and well informed patients have such major grievences with the CAA. Is it for no reason? Are they all wrong?

Exactly Who are the CAA are they some of the volunteers, all of the volunteers or the highly paid executives. Perhaps you would like to check out the following on Dr Vernon, Former CDC Mistress and instrumnetal in helping the CDC to constuct spurious definitions of CFS. The point to make is the utter incompetent stuff that they spout which is so damamging to patients, not any credible work that they are deemed to do. They seem to have a habit of having to undo their own incompetence if the favourable stuff people bring forward on them is measured against the crap they often get involved in. Where was Vernon over the crap UK studies and why did she not rip to shreds the use of the oxford criteria instead of defending it.

How much valuable time is spent by volunteers at the CAA smoothing over Dr Vernons nonsense reimbursed to the value of $174,000 per year. Does it sometimes feel like an episode of the TV show "24" over there?

Original post by DR Yes follows

After looking at the Vernon abstract/proposal in question, and checking the references she gave, I found a lot that was disturbing to say the least. I posted the following over on PR:

-----------------------------------------------

There are a number of problems with Dr. Vernon's proposal "Consolidate & Connect CFS Research", but I will focus here on the citation she uses for her statements:


Quote
"After almost 20 years of accelerated research efforts examining the pathophysiological basis of CFS, no clear understanding of risk factors or the mechanisms underlying the key symptoms has emerged. These two decades have been marked by significant achievements in epidemiology (4-9) and by some advances in management (reviewed in 10-12). By contrast, the outcomes of pathophysiological research have generally featured delineation of what CFS is not - a muscle disorder, a retroviral infection, a recognised psychiatric disorder, a known autoimmune disorder, etc. Sadly, the endeavours seeking to define what CFS is, have been characterised by false leads and dead ends. That is, innumerable small, cross-sectional case-control studies have failed to support plausible hypotheses of an infective, immunological, neurological, endocrine or metabolic disorder (reviewed in 10, 11)."

Reference 11 is a 2003 review article by Afari and Buchwald in the American Journal of Psychiatry (http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/...ract/160/2/221)
It is not the sort of article that I think the Science Director of the major patient advocacy organization should be citing at all, let alone as a good review of biological findings in CFS and of helpful 'management' strategies. Consider the following excerpts:


Quote
Generalized anxiety disorder and somatoform
disorder also occur at a higher rate in chronic
fatigue syndrome subjects than in the general population
(128, 133–135). In most (130–132), but not all cases (3,
136), the mood or anxiety disorder precedes the onset of
chronic fatigue syndrome.

References 131 and 132 are to a couple heinous articles authored by Wessely and Peter Manu, respectively (Peter Manu was sort of the American precursor to Wessely and company).

By the way, they do provide a gem of a statement (in a good counter-argument, actually):


Quote
Although the distinctions between physical and psychiatric illnesses often are not useful or accurate, their differentiation is in part the basis for a diagnosis of somatization.

That one statement sums up so much that is wrong with 'psychosomatic medicine' in general (including the astonishing lack of any science whatsoever in it) and with its application to CFS in particular!

However, they go on to present an argument that encapsulates much of the damaging beliefs that have led to the divide between the majority of ME/CFS patients and some at the CAA, CDC, and CBT/GET advocates in general:


Quote
Attributions about the causes of an illness or its symptoms
are important in determining a patient’s response to
the illness (155). Patients with chronic fatigue syndrome
often attribute their illness to physical causes and minimize
psychological or personal contributions (148, 156,
157). For example, compared to patients with diabetes,
rheumatoid arthritis, and chronic pain, those with chronic
fatigue syndrome attributed their symptoms more often to
“a virus” or “pollution” and less often acknowledged a role
for their own behavior (56). Such causal attributions have
been related to an increase in symptoms (158) and functional
impairment (159, 160) and to worse subjective and
objective outcomes over time (161). It is noteworthy that
relatives also tend to attribute the patients’ symptoms to
somatic causes (157), and their beliefs and attributions
about chronic fatigue syndrome, as well as solicitous behavior,
may inadvertently reinforce patients’ illness behavior
(162). Although it has been suggested that somatic attributions
may be a risk factor for the development of chronic
fatigue syndrome (157), at the very least, they probably exacerbate the illness and lead to greater disability.
They add:


Quote
Individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome employ a
variety of strategies to cope with the debilitating consequences
of fatigue. Overall, several studies suggest that
patients with chronic fatigue syndrome use significantly
more escape/avoidance strategies, compared with healthy
subjects (172), age- and gender-matched primary care
patients without chronic fatigue (173), or their nonfatigued
twins (174). Avoidance strategies, in turn, have
been associated with greater fatigue, impairment, and
other psychosocial disturbances in chronic fatigue syndrome
(175, 176). Thus, while not a cause of chronic fatigue
syndrome, maladaptive coping strategies can perpetuate
the illness.
I am both perplexed and deeply concerned that Vernon considered this paper an authoritative source for information on the lack of physical findings in CFS and, even more so, on the successful psychosocial approach to management of the disease! Are these views representative of Dr. Vernon's own on CFS, or on the CAA's as a whole??
 
Messages
304
Likes
2
Location
London area
It is with great sincerity and happiness that I am able to announce the forthcoming joining in holy matrimony of the CAA to the CDC.

They are deeply in love and this is "their song", come and see their first dance on their special day.[video=youtube;7POawPXZueo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7POawPXZueo[/video]
 
Messages
417
Likes
0
This thread explains one of the things we need people for:

http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...-similarly-under-researched-diseases-outreach

Still floating around in extreme confusion over some earlier posts on this thread, but I am sure it will all be sorted out. The other forum is not about being "against" anything, really, except a psychosocial theory of CCC ME/CFS (and heavy-handed, biased moderation). Rather it is about being "for" solid biomedical research, in particular into the role of XMRV and its consequences - although not limited to this. In this respect, we are not big fans of fence sitters.
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Likes
15,536
Location
Sth Australia
There are too few collective resources to allow for these types of internal conflicts among CFS/ME/CFIDS supporters. What is needed now is consensus rather than finger pointing. No one really knows why the CDC does what it does. It just does. In my book, any support org like CAA may be forgiven for trying to work along with the CDC and get results. It least for a decade or two.

Here is one possible explanation; the powers that be at the CDC have by complete accident been operantly conditioned to react to any explanation for an organic basis to ME/CFS/CFIDS as an intrusion upon their authority, and they react with aggression to any possible evidence that their psychological construct for the disease is wrong.

See ground breaking research at http://www.physorg.com/news119535403.html which shows that aggression triggers a reward mechanism as strong as food, sex or drugs of abuse:




These poor scientists have been unwittingly conditioned over time to act as they do and publish these aggressive and unbalanced CFS research articles. After 4,800 of them, they can no longer help themselves. They have become dopamine junkies.

It is quite possible that CBT may be needed to correct these behavioral anomalies, and I posit that the CAA will be instrumental in the future in helping to arrange treatment for the most severely afflicted CDC researchers.
LOL levi, i liked your post.
 
Messages
1,471
Likes
5
Location
UK
The CDC's attitude is no accident. They had the disease ME right in front of them when the chose to ignore more than 30 years of data.

CFS was a diabolical creation, designed to mock patients and disguise any biological evidence.

You are really kidding yourself if you do not understand what the CDC has done.