Felly wrote:And before you get in to the victim one-upmanship again, yes mine is mainly mild at the moment. Who knows what this means for the future but I want, regardless of what kind of MS I have, to be considered on my own merits -not first and foremost as a person with MS. Sorry if this causes you offence.
Felly wrote:Personally, I think whoever takes this position needs to be the best qualified for the job - regardless of whether they have MS, don't have MS , have a relative with MS or come from MARS. Who cares as long as they are effective. I don't think any of the other posters are saying that having MS was a prerequisite to the post, only that these were things that it may be considered.
Felly wrote:Why shouldn't they be considered Willysnout, what frightens you about the suggestions so much that you have to make such angry retorts and sarcastic responses?
Felly wrote:This site is a fantastic resource - but I am bored to tears with your antagnostic outlook and have pretty much stopped reading the threads for fear that you will have jumped in there with some negative, harping comment.
art wrote:I think I'd have to agree that Reingold is not a drug company stooge, nor is anyone at the NMSS.
art wrote:I agree that it would be unwise to exclude someone solely because they worked at the NMSS, but fresh blood is desperately needed in that organization.
art wrote:I think having someone who is not originally from the MS research community, but has had a lot of experience in it subsequently would be ideal. Take, for example, someone like Eric Lander. He's recognized as one of the world's top geneticists and he is a mathematician and economist by training. He came in with a fresh perspective, a brilliant mind, and massive charisma and got the Human Genome Project completed. I can't think of a better model for MS while we're wishing we could find someone. Thus I propose, don't exclude someone because they didn't start out as a medical researcher. Hell, I think Reingold's background is physics - so there you go.
art wrote:I think we're looking for brilliance, and it doesn't have to be those particular fields. Brilliance over experience is almost always better. You can gain experience, you can't gain brilliance.
art wrote:Dude, that's so lame it isn't worth commenting on. If the MS Society listened to you they'd have the ADA so far up their behind they could look out their own mouth. Guess we should tell Christopher Reeve and Michael J. Fox they should quit their jobs.
art wrote:Did Jonas Salk have polio? No - but I'm sure he knew plenty of people who did.
art wrote:I think the idea of creating a list of desired qualifications (as was proposed elsewhere) is probably a neutral way to go about it.
art wrote:For someone who doesn't like ad hominem attacks, you certainly are full of them!
art wrote:A major opportunity to alter the course of MS research is upon us. We have (with the NMSS) a 50 year history of spending huge amounts resulting in very little effect.
art wrote:A different approach is needed. The opportunity is upon us to get a different approach tried. I think it is a great idea to try and participate in changing that.
willysnout wrote:I need to clarify, because apparently reading comprehension is a real
problem around here. I did not argue that Rheingold isn't a
drug company stooge. Rather, I asked for a definition of the term and
some evidence. It is quite possible that he's a drug company stooge,
but merely calling someone such a thing doesn't make it so.
The same goes for the NMSS in general. To quote a phrase: Where's
willysnout wrote:Why? (In the interest of reading comprehension, the question "Why"
does not mean that I disagree. I just want to know "why" you hold that
willysnout wrote:This is a good, intelligent, thought-provoking answer. Or at least
it's a start. What is "fresh" about Lander's perspective, and what
would this "freshness" bring to the research effort in MS? Be
specific, i.e., no promotional cliches but some real analysis.
willysnout wrote:But why economists, mathematicians or business leaders in particular?
willysnout wrote:Not sure about Fox, but Reeve isn't qualified to be research director
of anything. He doesn't have the stamina for the job. This doesn't
make Reeve a bad guy, but it's a good reason not to make him research
willysnout wrote:Presumptions are easy, but knowledge is difficult. Exactly what do you
know about Salk's acquaintanceships and their influence on his
work? In any case, even if Salk was motivated by acquaintances with
polio, it remains that the history of science teaches that politics,
religion (which is politics on steroids) and science shouldn't be
And make no mistake about it, a demand that the research director of
the NMSS be "MS-affected" is a political demand for a form of
"group representation." It has utterly nothing to do with the
job itself. I couldn't care less who comes up with the answers. I just
want them. Hire the best person, not the politically attractive
one. And frankly, I don't care if he's well-liked unless that's
something a research director needs to be.
willysnout wrote:And what makes people think the NMSS is unable to do this on its own?
More to the point, why should they take suggestions from a bunch of
people who regard them as stooges for the pharmaceutical companies?
willysnout wrote:It takes more than a strong opinion and pointed language to make
something an ad hominem attack. If you don't believe me,
willysnout wrote:That's not limited to NMSS. You're right about there not being a cure
or even very satisfactory treatment, but it's not enough to simply
willysnout wrote:I want to know more specifically what you think is wrong with the way
the NMSS goes about it funding of research. How can anyone make an
intelligent change of direction without such as analysis? Otherwise,
it's just an idle political contest fought by a bunch of people who
have nothing but frustration and sentiment as their guides.
A mob, in other words. And let me say a couple things about crowds:
They are tempting to join; always stupid; and usually wrong.
OddDuck wrote:Willy - now be kind to me when you respond. hehehe........... Remember, hold it down to only what you really think.
art wrote:Humans are quite capable of handling imprecisions in speech - at least most are. It is obvious that many of your responses are taken differently than you intend and that you make many people feel defensive.
art wrote:This is not a good prelude to having your concerns listened to, in my opinion.
art wrote:what <i>are</i> your purposes?
art wrote:Anyone can rebut with "why?" or "what do you mean by X", but it takes a little thought to respond with counter-examples and logic. I'm not saying this to be insulting - I'm guessing you have some very salient points to make. Go beyond just questioning what someone says - <i>add</i> something to the discussion and we'll all be better for it. Right now it looks like the main result is people being afraid of your reply.
art wrote:Did you think the additional definition of "why" was actually adding information to your post. Or did you realize it was just going to be
taken as a snide comment?
art wrote:I think the things I do regarding the NMSS because 3 years ago I quit my job to work full-time on understanding what was going in MS research
and what might be done. I have talked with over a hundred top MS researchers, visited their labs, met with the folks at the NIH, I have had discussions with present and past NMSS employees and board
members, and I have read hundreds and hundreds of MS research papers, text books, and reports. I have 4 people working for me right now who are doing further research into what's going on in MS research.
I have formed my opinions based on these experiences. That's why.
art wrote:Granted, I'm not the most qualified person in the world to hold an opinion on this topic, but I think I've done my homework. Just so we know how seriously to take you, what are your qualifications?
art wrote:Come on Willy, if you're so desperate for analysis do some yourself. Where's the analysis that the status quo is working?
art wrote:I'm not going to all the work for you. (Actually, I probably am, but that's just the nature of what I do for a living now).
art wrote:For genetics Eric brought an analytical perspective that was sorely lacking in much of genetics.
art wrote:He went on to hire astronomers and physicists to work at the whitehead and they went on to make significant breakthroughs that traditional life scientists probably never would have.
art wrote:OK, let's play your game: how do you know this? Do you know Reeve? Do you even know someone who knows him? Reading comprehension? I didn't say they were research directors. They both have very demanding and time consuming jobs. Somehow they manage to do them.
art wrote:Obviously you have a different opinion - what is it? What's it based on? Enlighten us. I'm guessing you have some good points to make. Stop
dancing around the edges.
art wrote:accusations of reading comprehension abilities
"this is nonsense"
"Someone with MS would likely lack the stamina"
art wrote:Huh? I think 50 years of no success while using a method is ample evidence that trying something different might be a good idea.
Users browsing this forum: jerrygallow