Skycloud
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Thanks for your work in this thread @Sly Saint
I think this is in Canada:
As far as I can gather LDI is Liability Driven Investing(LDI)(ie Pensions, insurance).
http://www.ladydavis.ca/en/ISAB
sorry, I should have spotted that.........I shall remove the post
have set up a thread here:I think there needs to be some sort of central resource where folk involved with insurance companies can look at other people's experiences and discoveries.
There was an enormous rise in the reported incidence of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in the late 1970s and 1980s, alarming medical insurance companies in the US. So it was at this time that certain psychiatrists and others involved in the medical insurance industry (on both sides of the Atlantic) began their campaign to reclassify the severely incapacitating and discrete neurological disorder known as Myalgic Encephalomyelitis as a psychological or ‗personality‘ disorder, in order to side-step the financial responsibility of so many new claims (Marshall & Williams 2005a, [Online]). As Professor Malcolm Hooper explains:
In the 1980s in the US (where there is no NHS and most of the costs of health care are borne by insurance companies), the incidence of ME escalated rapidly, so a political decision was taken to rename M.E. as ―chronic fatigue syndrome‖, the cardinal feature of which was to be chronic or on going ―fatigue‖, a symptom so universal that any insurance claim based on ―tiredness‖ could be expediently denied. The new case definition bore little relation to M.E.: objections were raised by experienced international clinicians and medical scientists, but all objections were ignored… To the serious disadvantage of patients, these psychiatrists have propagated untruths and falsehoods about the disorder to the medical, legal, insurance and media communities, as well as to government Ministers and to Members of Parliament, resulting in the withdrawal and erosion of both social and financial support [for M.E. patients]. Influenced by these psychiatrists, government bodies around the world have continued to propagate the same falsehoods with the result that patients are left without any hope of understanding or of health service provision or delivery. As a consequence, government funding into the biomedical aspects of the disorder is non-existent. (2003a, [Online]) (2001, [Online])
For at least a decade, serious questions have been raised in international medical journals about possible scientific misconduct and flawed methodology in the work of Wessely and his colleagues. It is only relatively recently however that his long-term involvement as medical adviser – and board member – to a number of commercial bodies having a vested interest in how M.E. is managed have been exposed.
The government funded research produced by this group continues to be rigorously criticised on the grounds that it is methodologically flawed and biased and that it relies on a highly selective and misrepresentative choice of references, and too often cites their own studies as the sole or primary references. Despite this, and the fact that this coterie of psychiatrists has a number of outrageous conflicts of interest and proven affiliations with corporate industry they have managed to assiduously infiltrate all the major institutions – including government – directing funding for M.E. research into an exclusively psychiatric model of the illness; and which involves studying ‗fatigue‘ sufferers instead of those with M.E. All under the ‗anything-goes‘ banner of ‗CFS‘ (Mar 2004, [Online]) (Hooper 2003, [Online]) (Hooper et al. 2001, [Online]).
"Wessely is a member of the supervisory board of a company named PRISMA
The shame isn't that they're trying to classify ME as a mental illness to avoid paying out past 24 months, the real shame is that they can get away with discriminating against mental illnesses like this and those who should be calling them out on this, are not doing so.
He's very busy networking with all his contacts in high places trying to avoid any mud sticking to himselfGiven that he has been rewarded for his courage in standing up for good science, what are we to make of SW's present silence?
Given that he has been rewarded for his courage in standing up for good science, what are we to make of SW's present silence?
Couldn't find an answer in this thread.Where does the piece at the top come from @Sly Saint ? Is it a book chapter and is it recently released?
Yes, it's the very first linkCouldn't find an answer in this thread.
In case you asked about the piece in the opening post:
Rutherford, Jonathan (Summer 2007). "New labour, the market state, and the end of welfare". Soundings, issue: Politics and markets. Lawrence & Wishart. 36: 40–55. [says Wikipedia]