I believe it could grow into a very good organization for us patients, especially if we help shape it. We need to tell them what we want.
Sounds reasonable - how do you suggest that "we help shape it -- tell them what we want"?
I believe it could grow into a very good organization for us patients, especially if we help shape it. We need to tell them what we want.
Can you create a new thread with more information on this? If people are to ask their MEP for help, they need to be able to tell what to do and when and who can answer further questions.
There's already a thread for the EU Petition here https://www.s4me.info/threads/eu-pe...ding-for-me-research.10363/page-6#post-215132
Unfortunately, I think that the EUROMENE members need to produce documents to justify funding for the group.
Derek P is sound as a bell as are the Biobank team representatives. Looks to me a case of good intentions being allowed to stray off piste......
Isn't this an Invest in ME initiated project?
I would write to MEPs if I could tell them exactly what I'm actually asking them to do. I want them to attend some meeting and support a proposal. What meeting, what proposal? Where can they learn about this so that they can decide whether this is a sensible proposal or not? They will not spend time on vague half baked ideas.
EUROMENE was invented by Derek as a talking shop to raise the level of research dialogue and collaboration. It was reinvented when Uldis Berkis managed to get a grant from the EU to have meetings and develop consensus statements. It is not the IiME EMERGE idea.
I am all in favour of having an European talking shop and useful collaborations have been facilitated. The biggest downside of EUROMENE is the need to produce consensus documents just for the sake of justifying funding to hold meetings to produce consensus documents. There is a major element of going round in circles. On the other hand the process brings people together with a common purpose, which I think lowers the level of unhelpful competition that otherwise tends to dominate science.
I worry a bit about data papers being produced 'on behalf of EUROMENE'. I think that makes it look as if EUROMENE is itself a research group. It isn't.
Is there mileage in us contacting Euromene, either collectively or individually, with our positive comments that survey was undertaken, but our strong rejection of those current guidelines recommending CBT or GET as there is no reliable evidence base for either and substantial support for them being potentially harmful?
Harmonising guidelines should only happen when there has been more research into ME and when there is consensus on what constitutes good practice.
@FMMM1 thank you. To answer your previous question, I think we can influence EUROMENE just by communicating with its members. If it was necessary we could also create a petition (in a situation where for example opinion within EUROMENE was divided between GET or no GET, but I hope that will never be the case).
The presentation slides aren't good. Not much substance other than "resistance to psychological treatments" being an imaginary barrier to them magically working. They don't work because we don't want to get better, implied but still clear. Tripe.Another EUROMENE-article that seems a bit worrying titled "Effects and patient's experiences of non-pharmacological treatment for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome - a scoping review from the EU-Cost group EUROMENE network". Not published yet, but it was presented at a recent conference in Norway. Slides from presentation are available here https://www.s4me.info/threads/norwa...e-nov-25th-26th-2019.11827/page-2#post-224971