Esther12
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I think in the end we sink or swim through good analysis - I think that is what has happened with PACE and why they are finding it harder to be influential.
Its hard to even try to have any form of control on twitter and I think one issue is the number of people who want their say - but I was wondering if that is partly because we don't feel we have organizations that really give patients a good voice (hence everyone wants their own).
To me, PACE is an example of how important politics over analysis is, not the other way around.
I agree that no-one can control what others say and there's always going to be nonsense. But the same is true of journalists and academics. We still do finger wagging there.
I agree a lot of patients do feel without a voice, and without much power over their own lives. I think that this can encourage a desperate nihilism in the way they (we) engage with others. I don't think many journalists are going to be particularly understanding when on the receiving end of that.
To me, pointing out that people have been criticising it at Berkeley and Princeton isn't much of a rebuttal to people defending PACE from the MRC, HRA, etc. I think we've gone backwards on PACE, on the basis of politics rather than argument, and that's probably going to mean some regrouping and a more cautious tone on some of these points.
Last edited: