MEpedia - User contributions [en]

Science for ME

2026-02-15T05:31:11Z

Dane:/* Critical Reception */

[[File:Facebook-profile-picture-v1.1.png|200px|thumb|right]]
[https://www.s4me.info/ Science for ME] (S4ME) is a British website which states that it is "an independent, patient-led, international forum for people with ME/CFS and the carers, clinicians, scientists and advocates who support us."<ref>https://www.facebook.com/pg/sci4me/about/</ref>

S4ME reported that its forum had reached 500 members on December 17th 2017<ref>https://www.s4me.info/index.php?threads/science-for-me-gains-its-500th-member.1557/#post-26245</ref>, and 2,646 members as at August 4th 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-page-on-mepedia.21670/ | title = Science for ME page on MEpedia|website=Science for ME|language=en-US|access-date=2021-08-04}}</ref>

== Notable Forum Members ==
*[[Jonathan Edwards]]
*[[Tom Kindlon]]
*[[Simon McGrath]]
*[[Carolyn Wilshire]]
*[[David Tuller]]

== Researcher Interaction ==
*Video Q&A with Dr [[Sadie Whittaker]] from [[Solve ME/CFS Initiative]], May 2019.<ref>https://youtu.be/eIMDoRvE2yA</ref>
*Written Q&A with Professor [[Chris Ponting]], June 2018.<ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-written-q-a-with-prof-chris-ponting.4743/</ref>
*Science for ME video Q&A with Dr [[Jose Montoya]], January 2018 <ref>https://youtu.be/FarVtTHmKLc</ref>
*Q&A with team members of the [[UK ME/CFS biobank]], December 14th 2017.<ref>https://www.s4me.info/index.php?threads/uk-me-cfs-biobank-ask-me-anything-thread-thursday-14th-december-2017-2-30-to-3-30pm-gmt-utc.1458/</ref>

== Forum Member Advocacy Projects ==
*Submission to the public review on common data elements for ME/CFS: Problems with the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/s4me-submission-to-the-public-review-on-common-data-elements-for-me-cfs-problems-with-the-chalder-fatigue-questionnaire.2065/</ref>
*Open letter to [[NICE]] concerning the Guideline Committee for ME/CFS <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/grahams-finalised-letter-to-nice-january-2018.1885/</ref>
*Briefing document - The PACE Trial Controversy: A Summary <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-pace-briefing-document.3140/</ref>

== Critical Reception ==
This forum's strength is its intellectual rigor; a high bar of critique set by its corpus of experts. Unfortunately, this is the source of its multiple weaknesses. Its bio-reductionism prevents it from the genuine science its name aspires to; fallibilism is the "F"-word to them. Appeals to authority and tradition predominate. Despite claiming to value "critical, open debate" and equality, core members will, ironically, attempt to gaslight you if you express even a hint of a difference of opinion over other complex chronic illnesses. Their overreliance on inductive methods, and their casual dismissiveness of its problematics, underwrites their paternalism, where inferences from aggregate results are dogmatically yet erroneously believed to trump diagnostic decision making where individual differences ought to be given precedence. They also give MDs and established members inordinate amounts of time and attention over its citizen scientist members, and allow the former much more interpretive leeway with the rules than the latter. Their staff and moderators often engage in double standards or conflicts of interest. For instance, they frequently "moderate" the very debates in which they simultaneously participate! If you don't comply with their pre-conclusions, or waver even a little from their biases towards the hypothetico-deductive method of science, or their traditions of analyzing research papers, they are prone to resort to subtle name calling, passive-aggressive denigration.and other forms defamation innuendo. Their preferential treatment of MDs and others aligned with those MDs is not only indicative of their narrow minded approach to medical science, nosology and clinical practice, but also facilitates watchdogging and bullying of newer members even when the those members are clearly debating within the forum's stated rules and guidelines.

== Publicly Visible Forums ==
*[https://www.s4me.info/ Home]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/me-cfs-news-and-research.80/ ME/CFS News and Research]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/other-news-and-research.79/ Other News and Research]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/advocacy.78/ Advocacy]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/symptoms.90/ Symptoms]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/treatments.32/ Treatments]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/doctors-and-diagnostics.77/ Doctors and Diagnostics]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/missed-alternative-or-co-existing-diagnoses.76/ Missed, Alternative or Co-existing Diagnoses]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/living-with-me-cfs.75/ Living with ME/CFS]

==Online presence==
*[https://www.s4me.info/ Website]
*[https://www.twitter.com/s4me_info Twitter]
*[https://www.facebook.com/sci4me/ Facebook]
*[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD17E9tRKSy8OByClNu3I6Q YouTube]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Discussion forums]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Science for ME

2026-02-13T04:36:51Z

Dane:Criticisms

[[File:Facebook-profile-picture-v1.1.png|200px|thumb|right]]
[https://www.s4me.info/ Science for ME] (S4ME) is a British website which states that it is "an independent, patient-led, international forum for people with ME/CFS and the carers, clinicians, scientists and advocates who support us."<ref>https://www.facebook.com/pg/sci4me/about/</ref>

S4ME reported that its forum had reached 500 members on December 17th 2017<ref>https://www.s4me.info/index.php?threads/science-for-me-gains-its-500th-member.1557/#post-26245</ref>, and 2,646 members as at August 4th 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-page-on-mepedia.21670/ | title = Science for ME page on MEpedia|website=Science for ME|language=en-US|access-date=2021-08-04}}</ref>

== Notable Forum Members ==
*[[Jonathan Edwards]]
*[[Tom Kindlon]]
*[[Simon McGrath]]
*[[Carolyn Wilshire]]
*[[David Tuller]]

== Researcher Interaction ==
*Video Q&A with Dr [[Sadie Whittaker]] from [[Solve ME/CFS Initiative]], May 2019.<ref>https://youtu.be/eIMDoRvE2yA</ref>
*Written Q&A with Professor [[Chris Ponting]], June 2018.<ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-written-q-a-with-prof-chris-ponting.4743/</ref>
*Science for ME video Q&A with Dr [[Jose Montoya]], January 2018 <ref>https://youtu.be/FarVtTHmKLc</ref>
*Q&A with team members of the [[UK ME/CFS biobank]], December 14th 2017.<ref>https://www.s4me.info/index.php?threads/uk-me-cfs-biobank-ask-me-anything-thread-thursday-14th-december-2017-2-30-to-3-30pm-gmt-utc.1458/</ref>

== Forum Member Advocacy Projects ==
*Submission to the public review on common data elements for ME/CFS: Problems with the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/s4me-submission-to-the-public-review-on-common-data-elements-for-me-cfs-problems-with-the-chalder-fatigue-questionnaire.2065/</ref>
*Open letter to [[NICE]] concerning the Guideline Committee for ME/CFS <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/grahams-finalised-letter-to-nice-january-2018.1885/</ref>
*Briefing document - The PACE Trial Controversy: A Summary <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-pace-briefing-document.3140/</ref>

== Critical Reception ==
This forum's strength is its intellectual rigor; a high bar of critique set by its corpus of experts. Unfortunately, this is the source of its multiple weaknesses. Its bio-reductionism prevents it from the genuine science its name aspires to; fallibilism is the "F"-word to them. Appeals to authority and tradition predominate. Despite claiming to value "critical, open debate" and equality, core members will, ironically, attempt to gaslight you if you express even a hint of a difference of opinion over other complex chronic illnesses. They also give MDs and established members inordinate amounts of time and attention over its citizen scientist members, and allow the former much more interpretive leeway with the rules than the latter. Their staff and moderators often engage in double standards or conflicts of interest. For instance, they frequently "moderate" the very debates in which they simultaneously participate! If you don't comply with their pre-conclusions, or waver even a little from their biases towards the hypothetico-deductive method of science, or their traditions of analyzing research papers, they are prone to resort to subtle name calling and other forms defamation innuendo. Their preferential treatment of MDs and others aligned with those MDs is not only indicative of their narrow minded approach to medical science, nosology and clinical practice, but also facilitates watchdogging and bullying of newer members even when the those members are clearly debating within the forum's stated rules and guidelines.

== Publicly Visible Forums ==
*[https://www.s4me.info/ Home]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/me-cfs-news-and-research.80/ ME/CFS News and Research]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/other-news-and-research.79/ Other News and Research]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/advocacy.78/ Advocacy]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/symptoms.90/ Symptoms]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/treatments.32/ Treatments]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/doctors-and-diagnostics.77/ Doctors and Diagnostics]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/missed-alternative-or-co-existing-diagnoses.76/ Missed, Alternative or Co-existing Diagnoses]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/living-with-me-cfs.75/ Living with ME/CFS]

==Online presence==
*[https://www.s4me.info/ Website]
*[https://www.twitter.com/s4me_info Twitter]
*[https://www.facebook.com/sci4me/ Facebook]
*[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD17E9tRKSy8OByClNu3I6Q YouTube]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Discussion forums]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Science for ME

2026-02-12T22:45:42Z

Dane:Critical Reception

[[File:Facebook-profile-picture-v1.1.png|200px|thumb|right]]
[https://www.s4me.info/ Science for ME] (S4ME) is a British website which states that it is "an independent, patient-led, international forum for people with ME/CFS and the carers, clinicians, scientists and advocates who support us."<ref>https://www.facebook.com/pg/sci4me/about/</ref>

S4ME reported that its forum had reached 500 members on December 17th 2017<ref>https://www.s4me.info/index.php?threads/science-for-me-gains-its-500th-member.1557/#post-26245</ref>, and 2,646 members as at August 4th 2021.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-page-on-mepedia.21670/ | title = Science for ME page on MEpedia|website=Science for ME|language=en-US|access-date=2021-08-04}}</ref>

== Notable Forum Members ==
*[[Jonathan Edwards]]
*[[Tom Kindlon]]
*[[Simon McGrath]]
*[[Carolyn Wilshire]]
*[[David Tuller]]

== Researcher Interaction ==
*Video Q&A with Dr [[Sadie Whittaker]] from [[Solve ME/CFS Initiative]], May 2019.<ref>https://youtu.be/eIMDoRvE2yA</ref>
*Written Q&A with Professor [[Chris Ponting]], June 2018.<ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-written-q-a-with-prof-chris-ponting.4743/</ref>
*Science for ME video Q&A with Dr [[Jose Montoya]], January 2018 <ref>https://youtu.be/FarVtTHmKLc</ref>
*Q&A with team members of the [[UK ME/CFS biobank]], December 14th 2017.<ref>https://www.s4me.info/index.php?threads/uk-me-cfs-biobank-ask-me-anything-thread-thursday-14th-december-2017-2-30-to-3-30pm-gmt-utc.1458/</ref>

== Forum Member Advocacy Projects ==
*Submission to the public review on common data elements for ME/CFS: Problems with the Chalder Fatigue Questionnaire <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/s4me-submission-to-the-public-review-on-common-data-elements-for-me-cfs-problems-with-the-chalder-fatigue-questionnaire.2065/</ref>
*Open letter to [[NICE]] concerning the Guideline Committee for ME/CFS <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/grahams-finalised-letter-to-nice-january-2018.1885/</ref>
*Briefing document - The PACE Trial Controversy: A Summary <ref>https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-pace-briefing-document.3140/</ref>

== Critical Reception ==
This forum's strength is its intellectual rigor; a high bar of critique set by its corpus of experts. Unfortunately, this is the soirce of its multiple weknesses. It's too bio-centric, bio-reductionist and close minded to be genuinely scientific. Fallibilism is the "F"-word to them. Appeals to authority and tradition predominate. Despite claiming to value "critical, open debate" and equality, core members will attempt to gaslight you if express even a semblance of a different opinion about other complex, chronic illnesses. They also give MDs and established members inordinate amounts of time and attention and allow them much more interpretive leeway with the rules. Their staff and moderators will engage in double standards and conflicts of interest. For instance, they will simultaneously "moderate" debates they participate in! If you don't comply with their pre-conclusions, or waver even a little from their biases towards the hypothetico-deductive model of science, or their reports analysis traditions, they will resort to subtle name calling and other forms defamation innuendo. They give preferential treatment to MDs and others aligned with said narrow minded approach to medical science, nosology and clinical practice, watchdogging and bullying newer members into conformity even when the former are clearly debating within their stated rules and guidelines.

== Publicly Visible Forums ==
*[https://www.s4me.info/ Home]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/me-cfs-news-and-research.80/ ME/CFS News and Research]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/other-news-and-research.79/ Other News and Research]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/advocacy.78/ Advocacy]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/symptoms.90/ Symptoms]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/treatments.32/ Treatments]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/doctors-and-diagnostics.77/ Doctors and Diagnostics]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/missed-alternative-or-co-existing-diagnoses.76/ Missed, Alternative or Co-existing Diagnoses]
*[https://www.s4me.info/index.php?forums/living-with-me-cfs.75/ Living with ME/CFS]

==Online presence==
*[https://www.s4me.info/ Website]
*[https://www.twitter.com/s4me_info Twitter]
*[https://www.facebook.com/sci4me/ Facebook]
*[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCD17E9tRKSy8OByClNu3I6Q YouTube]

== References ==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Discussion forums]]
[[Category:Websites]]

Talk:Science for ME

2026-02-12T22:38:00Z

Dane:/* Critical Reception */ new section

== Critical Reception -- [[User:Dane|Dane]] ([[User talk:Dane|talk]]) 22:38, February 12, 2026 (UTC) ==

This forum's strength is its intellectual rigor; a high bar of critique set by its corpus of experts. Unfortunately, this is the soirce of its multiple weknesses. It's too bio-centric, bio-reductionist and close minded to be genuinely scientific. Fallibilism is the "F"-word to them. Appeals to authority and tradition predominate. Despite claiming to value "critical, open debate" and equality, core members will attempt to gaslight you if express even a semblance of a different opinion about other complex, chronic illnesses. They also give MDs and established members inordinate amounts of time and attention and allow them much more interpretive leeway with the rules. Their staff and moderators will engage in double standards and conflicts of interest. For instance, they will simultaneously "moderate" debates they participate in! If you don't comply with their pre-conclusions, or waver even a little from their biases towards the hypothetico-deductive model of science, or their reports analysis traditions, they will resort to subtle name calling and other forms defamation innuendo. They give preferential treatment to MDs and others aligned with said narrow minded approach to medical science, nosology and clinical practice, watchdogging and bullying newer members into conformity even when the former are clearly debating within their stated rules and guidelines.