How does Sonya make everything she writes so infuriating?
I am not prepared to make comments about the alleged conduct of an individual at an event at which neither I nor any member of Action for M.E. was present. We did not have any input into the content of the presentation and, given that she has no formal role within the charity, do not speak for Esther.
Why was she prepared to comment on the MUPP(ets) thing, but not this? If she wants more information, why not ask Crawley about it?
We are very clear about the extent of our relationship with her: we fund a severe paediatric M.E. surveillance study on which she is the principal investigator, and we work alongside her as part of the M.E./CFS Epidemiology and Genomics Alliance.
Does that mean that they have no other contact with her outside of that? That doesn't sound plausible to me, but if they mean "we are very clear about the extent of our relationship with her: it includes x + y plus some other stuff I won't mention here" then that's not
very clear.
I can honestly say that for everyone who asks us to shout louder about PACE, there is another begging us to not get distracted.
Who wants you to just 'shout louder'? Is that really how she interpret's patient concerns? - as if we just want her to make more noise?
How would signing the open letter be more of a distraction from other things than not signing the open letter? 13,000 people signed the patient petition calling for the retraction of misleading PACE claims... how many are asking that Action for ME not speak out against these misleading claims?
I’m not able to devote any more time to answering questions I’ve already addressed.
She always just comes out with this evasive guff that fails to address any real concerns. It's the same tactic taken by PACE: "I've already responded to this." Yes, and we've taken the time to explain to you how deeply flawed your response is - you now need to new response, or to recognise the problems with your position, in order to move the discussion on.