āPatients with relevant scientific or medical knowledge were offered access at a substantially reduced rate, including access to almost 100 scientific sessions.ā
lol! This guy has the gall to say the conference was somehow accessible because disabled people he deemed worthy had āaccessā at a reduced fee.
You mean they had to somehow prove themselves to you and then also have enough money to pay for the conference fee, pay for flying there, pay for the hotel, pay for any care they needed to make it work, take time off of work or ask loved ones to to care for them to go, pay for baby sitters or pet sitters or whatever else they needed at home, and THEN get their asses to the conference and tolerate having to navigate it and engage with others for multiple hours every day??
The fact that this person thinks this is what access looks like is legitimately concerning. This is PEAK academic ableism and just wild that he is publicly admitting that this is how things were handled while still trying to claim it was accessible.
In-person conferences are NOT accessible. They are not necessary. They are actively exclusionary and do not effectively progress the field because they create an echo chamber of privileged academics. I can provide numerous citations on this subject. Please stop arguing this is what access looks like, or even quality science. Itās not
There are valid arguments here about accessibility, cost, carbon impact and the value of patient involvement in research. But those arguments shouldnāt be used to misrepresent what this particular conference actually offered.
It was not simply āphysically and financially inaccessibleā to patients unable to attend in person. Patients with relevant scientific or medical knowledge were offered access at a substantially reduced rate, including access to almost 100 scientific sessions. This has been explained several times.
Please email me your grievances and Iāll look into it. We do listen.
michael@islc-pais.org