Search results

It would be interesting to know what the parliamentary mechanism is for a bill the be withdrawn (if that is what happened), and if a record of that would be anywhere. I get the feeling there were probably some powerful forces in the background obstructing Jimmy Hood's valiant efforts, and may...

Oh ... sh*t! :rolleyes::)

I would also hope that in any such debate any moves to shift the "debate" towards the emotive and away from the science, would be brought up short. Science-based debate, not emotively driven power point presentation. e.g. My grandfather was a war hero etc.

The PACE author's have also adopted a similar tactic, albeit slightly more finessed. The sometimes come up with responses that don't address the fundamental issues that were being questioned, and then when pressed say they have already responded.

No doubt part of the think-your-physical-illness-better brigade.

That was 1998, so in 1988 it was all still in Westminster.

Lots of kicking the can down the road, despite Jimmy Hood's best efforts: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/sittings/1988/feb/23 http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1988/feb/23/myalgic-encephalomyelitis http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1988/feb/23/myalgic-encephalomyelitis-1...

Unfortunately the online Hansard House of Commons archives only go back to Nov 1988: http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/hansard/commons/ Edit: But about to look at Historic Hansard.

And I think inevitably the moderators might end up busier than usual :rolleyes: because although it would at times be incredibly difficult to not get a bit personal, it would be vital we stayed objectively on the science, and were seen to be so, else our cause and credibility would be seriously...

Excellent! :)

It's a tricky one, because if a forum that was founded on debating the science (good or bad) that prevailing ME treatments are based on, is not prepared to engage with those who hold entrenched positions that we strongly disagree with ... that surely comes across as hypocritical on our part...

This in itself is telling. Once a PwME has been ground into the dirt so much by the system, some of them will inevitably also suffer from consequential depression. The medical profession from then on will only see the depression, and the vicious circle then becomes fully established.

Only had time to read a bit of this so far, rest will have to be tomorrow. But it's brilliant Lou, you tell it like it is and get it across well. Interviewer seems to help with this process.

I fully retract my suggestion! Had it done as a kid and not very nice.

:yuck: Wash you mouth out with soap and water :D:D:D. [Said in the spirit of sincerely meant friendly banter].

I agree entirely. We are Science for ME after all, and so long as a debate sticks to science then should be prepared to debate with anyone - that is science surely. Including the BPS crew if they felt up to it :).

And we would be very happy to debate only the science, not personalities.

But they have stated in the PACE protocol that all personally identifying data is confined to a separate, different database. Or is the argument that even within the non-personal-details db (i.e. the main trial db) there can be data that as a whole that could indirectly identify a person to...

False-beliefs science.

But one with brain fog?