United Kingdom: News from Forward-ME Group

AR68 said:
The setting up of 'Forward ME' was specifically designed to keep out patients/patient activists. I attended all of the APPGs at the HoC between April 2006 and March 2010 and the CoM disliked us being there. She even tried to get my friend and colleague arrested after one meeting.
Click to expand...


Indeed. And the application by Paul Davis to extend an invitation to RiME (Campaigning for Research into Myalgic Encephalomyelitis) was rejected by the Countess of Mar.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Dx Revision Watch said:
Their names are listed under The 25% ME Group.
Click to expand...
Looking carefully at the way the names of individuals and organisations are laid out on the screenshot, it is clear that there is a gap between each listing, with usually the name of the individuals listed followed by their organisation. Andy and Jo's names are clearly separated by a gap from any organisation, and just happen to fall in the list after the 25% ME group that is represented by Tony Crouch.

[Edit: On the revised list their names are after MEResearch UK]
 
Andy said:
Do I need to actually answer this?
Click to expand...

That should not have appeared in the post (it was from an earlier discarded draft). I've now edited that line out.


But if not being listed as reps for The 25% ME Group (or affiliated to any of the other groups listed), why were no capacities or affiliations listed for Andy and Jo?

And were all signatories circulated a revised version to sign off on?
 
Last edited:
InfiniteRubix said:
I believe a request could be considered based on the site wording, but not sure S4ME joining Forward ME would be prudent.

There are some kernels of relevance in the overexcited analogy(!) of the judge, jury and executioner being kept separate. Less dramatically, the separation of powers and/roles between 1) advocates/politicians/law makers, 2) the enforcers/police, 3) the prosecution, 4) the defence, etc etc etx, further over-stretched analogies...(!). You get the idea.

Which party equals S4ME from the above motley crew is not the point. But the need for split seems analagous, especially as I aways write about this site as a crowdfunded public health thinktank, which makes it less akin to the advocacy party.

Even 'Vatican observer status' may be awkward on a human level.

Just some half baked food for thought.
Click to expand...
I should emphasize that I certainly was not implying anything negative about Forward ME. Far from it.

It's only the principle of what this place is or is not that I was referring to. And what that implies.

Individuals are a separate concept.

Given the cross-overs with sufficient involvement in practice without site involvement by name, it all feels moot. And already in a positive place.
 
I am not a member of Forward ME. I was involved in the statement because the matter was considered by Forward ME following requests from both myself and Andy, I believe.

I have been involved in some correspondence about the position of MEAction. Margaret Mar's decision appeared to be based on reasonable grounds.

Jennifer Brea indicated that her recent email about spine groups was not affiliated to MEAction. However, I have yet to see any statement from MEAction to indicate that it does not wish to be associated with the spine groups or with the dissemination on social media of material about spinal problems in the context of ME in general. I personally think that MEAction needs to make its position much clearer.
 
Given the way we've kept having politicians telling us that divisions amongst UK patient groups undermines progress, this seems like a bad move to me.

I feel sorry for the volunteers at ME Action UK is they're being excluded just because of their association with Brea, even after they signed up to that statement raising concerns about surgery.

I really don't see any benefit to removing their logo from that statement. If there's concern that ME Action is viewed as being associated with the promotion of surgery as a treatment for ME then surely having them sign up to a statement like that is useful for countering that?

Considering what Action for ME have done while being members, this seems particularly weird to me.
 
Esther12 said:
I really don't see any benefit to removing their logo from that statement. If there's concern that ME Action is viewed as being associated with the promotion of surgery as a treatment for ME then surely having them sign up to a statement like that is useful for countering that?
Click to expand...

I won't go in to details but the negotiations over this were considerably more complex. My understanding is that organisations agreed to all put this statement out themselves and as far as I know MEAction has failed to do so despite the statement being significantly watered down from what it might have been. The problem stemmed from a high profile member of MEAction. MEAction has not dissociated itself.

You are someone used to listening for political dog whistling, @Esther12, so I am a bit surprised that you do not see what has been going on here.

From my perspective the action of those still within Forward ME has been just the sort of unity from patient groups on a difficult issue that is needed to see their commitment to balanced information on ME. This shouldn't be seen in terms of politics, just agreeing that the only things that matter are the health interests of the patient community.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom