Skip to content

spoonseekerdotcom

life with too few spoons

  • About

Category: ME/CFS

How Many Times Must a Story Be Told…?

Sorry I’ve not been blogging recently. I put the blog to one side to concentrate on another project but I didn’t realise how long it would take. Needing to take breaks every five minutes to replenish my brain when I’m writing doesn’t make for speedy progress. Today, however, it has been May 12, ME Awareness Day, and I managed to share a link to Robert Saunders’ excellent ME-related version of Dylan’s ‘Blowing in the Wind’ on my (mainly non-ME specific) Facebook page. I read what I’d written to introduce the piece again just now and decided it was worth sharing it here too. If you’re involved in the ME world in some way, you’ve probably come across Robert’s splendid video already, but if not then do please take five minutes to listen – and maybe to share it with others.

Here (for a change) is the non-Facebook version of Robert’s introduction to the video.

Even if you think you know something about ME, some of the quotes used in the video may surprise you:

‘I split my clinical time between ME/CFS and HIV and I can tell you if I had to choose between the two illnesses, I’d rather have HIV.’ – Dr Nancy Klimas, Director, Institute of Neuro Immune Medicine, NSU.

‘People with ME are more disabled and have a lower quality of life than people with most other chronic illnesses including heart disease and multiple sclerosis.’

‘When the full details of the PACE Trial become known, it will be considered one of the biggest medical scandals if the 21st century.’ Carole Monaghan, UK MP

The PACE Trial spent £5m of UK taxpayers’ money and purported to illustrate the effectiveness of graded exercise therapy for ME. However, it was eventually discovered to be so full of flaws that it is now being taught in some university courses as an example of how not to do research. In spite of this, PACE is still highly influential worldwide, including here in the UK, its researchers being so embedded in the higher echelons of the medical establishment that mere facts seem to do nothing to damage their ‘credibility’ in the eyes of their peers.

Time and again, the faults and subterfuge which lie behind PACE have been laid bare, first by patients – many working from their sick beds – and more recently by commentators such as Dr David Tuller who have taken the trouble to look at the evidence and understand that the trial, and the biopsychosocial theory which underlies it, need to be exposed as the sham that they are. Time and again, the argument is won, and the PACE researchers are left mumbling the same excuses which didn’t hold water the last time around, yet to change the consensus view of the illness appears to take decades rather than years. Press coverage is slowly improving but the PACE researchers have a powerful lobbying group, the Science Media Centre, on their side, and though journalists are often well meaning, their idea of balance seems to be to present both sides of the argument, irrespective of where the truth may lie. The equivalent of most articles about ME would be a feature on the shape of the planet which gave equal time and weight to the views of the Flat Earth Society.

As the song puts it:

How many times must an idea fail

Before it is seen to be flawed?

How many flaws can a Trial embrace

Before it is seen as a fraud?

So the process of exposing the truth is an arduous one and of course people with ME have little energy to spare. We fight the illness as best we can but it is a cruel truth that we also have to fight an intransigent medical establishment. Thank goodness for those few healthy people who are willing to help us.

The slow process of getting to the truth has to go on. Graded exercise as promoted by PACE is very dangerous for people with ME. It can – and does – leave patients bedbound, sometimes permanently so. Not only that but the persistent presence of the biopsychosocial lobby means that most research money, especially here in the UK, goes into various ‘rehabilitation’ research programs such as PACE rather than into much needed biomedical research.

Of the 14 million people worldwide estimated to have ME, about 25% are housebound or bedbound, many as a result of graded exercise programs. Many of these severely affected can’t tolerate light so they spend their lives in darkened rooms. Some are not even well enough to talk to those close to them, so they Iive lives of total isolation.

The photos in the video illustrate the worlds of a solitary room in which many such people must live. When the song talks of people screaming in the dark then, it is not exaggeration – except that in reality the scream will most likely be a silent one.

Thanks for listening and reading. Please help by sharing this. Thanks, too, to Robert Saunders and all involved in making this powerful video.

How many times must a story be told

Before you will see what is true?

Further reading:

David Tuller’s initial analysis of PACE. Just reading the summary gives you a good understanding of the scale of the ‘errors’ involved:

Out of the Blue: an account of what it can be like to go down with ME – and a few useful links (from the Spoonseeker blog):

 

Author SpoonseekerPosted on May 12, 2018May 12, 2018Categories ME/CFS, PACETags BBC, Bob Dylan, CBT, David Tuller, fatigue, GET, Jonathan Edwards, ME Awareness Day, ME/CFS, mental health, NHS, PACE, Robert Saunders, severe ME1 Comment on How Many Times Must a Story Be Told…?

Feedback to Dr Hoenderkamp

First, a brief word of apology: I hadn’t realised what a difficult process it would be to embed a load of tweets into this blog. WordPress protested in various ways at this indignity but I thought I had overcome them. The post looks fine on our desktop PC and my smartphone. So far so good. I hope it’s the same for you. But then I discovered that if I follow a link from a tweet onto a tablet, a whole load of duplicate tweets which I had battled hard to suppress suddenly appear out of nowhere. If this happens to you, please press or click or whatever it is these days on the title of the blog. ie Spoonseekerdotcom That should make it ok. If you then want to leave a comment – or look at the comments – press or click on the title of this particular post, ‘Feedback to Dr H’. You should then have access to the comments without the duplicate tweets returning (I hope!) If you get any other problems with the post, please let me know and I’ll try to help if I’m up to it. Grr. I’m not going to try a post like this again in a hurry – and please don’t ask about the PEM.

"My experience over nearly 30 years, is that the #mecfs label exonerates a GP from needing to understand anything" Quote on FB yesterday from a long term patient whose doctor complained that they didn't understand a consultant's letter. (No access to Google either I presume.)

— Spoonseeker (@spoonseeker) January 26, 2018

Tweeting this quote, which happened to catch my attention on Facebook, recently provoked a flurry of activity on my Twitter feed when the medical writer and broadcaster Dr Renee Hoenderkamp took exception to it as follows:

@spoonseeker That's a gross misrepresentation of many excellent GP's who know tons and make it their business to st… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Renee Hoenderkamp (@DrHoenderkamp) January 26, 2018

It was not my intention – or, I think, that of the person who made the remark on Facebook – to criticise all GPs, and it does not seem to me now, in the cold light of day, that anyone carefully reading my tweet should get that impression. I argued as follows:

I don’t think the tweet disparages GPs in the way you suggest. Point being made is they are not expected – or indeed trained – to know anything *about #mecfs * nor do the vast majority feel the need to find out. I’m sure they’re too busy elsewhere but it’s tough on ME patients https://t.co/uhnSg3fE99

— Spoonseeker (@spoonseeker) 26 January 2018

Dr Hoenderkamp retorted:

@spoonseeker How do you know that? You weren't at Med school with me. We were trained actually. And it doesn't prev… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Renee Hoenderkamp (@DrHoenderkamp) January 26, 2018

And so on:

You are just about first doctor or medical student I've been in touch with who says they were trained in ME at Medi… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Spoonseeker (@spoonseeker) January 27, 2018

I myself have talked to hundreds of ME patients over the years - through the net and via patient support groups wit… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Spoonseeker (@spoonseeker) January 26, 2018

Patient Advocate Dr Claudia Gillberg also contested Dr Hoenderkamp’s interpretation of the original tweet:

@DrHoenderkamp @spoonseeker That's not a misrepresentation at all but a (painful) personal experience and as such c… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Claudia Gillberg (@DrCSGill) January 26, 2018

@DrCSGill @spoonseeker But it is I'm afraid because it a stereotype which is based on n=1/anecdote and just because… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Renee Hoenderkamp (@DrHoenderkamp) January 26, 2018

The patient refers to her 'experience over 30 years' so it is reasonable to suppose she is talking about more than… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Spoonseeker (@spoonseeker) January 26, 2018

I myself have talked to hundreds of ME patients over the years - through the net and via patient support groups wit… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Spoonseeker (@spoonseeker) January 26, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker Here’s a report on GP experience for people with ME meassociation.org.uk/2017/03/manche…

—
Adam pwME (@Adam_Bombe) January 26, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker It’s not the GPs fault, in the UK ME is not taught at medical school, NICE gu… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Adam pwME (@Adam_Bombe) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker Not just 1 anecdote, personal experience of years of being dismissed by vario… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Clare B (@ClrBlwrs) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker Here's another anecdote then. Over the years I've seen 8 GPs for ME who have… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
justME (@FeelingSeidy) January 27, 2018

In 3 years of appointments with NHS docs not one of them informed about ME, not interested to support other than re… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
  (@sholiv) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker I have been ill for more than 20 years and of the 5 GP's I have seen,none had… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Jackie Scoones (@jackiescoones) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker You are absolutely right unfortunately if you have #MEcfs many doctors become… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Mark Vink (@Huisarts_Vink) January 27, 2018

My lived experience of 38 years with ME & 4 different GPs is exactly the same. Even the kind ones were clueless. C… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
  (@diddlytwoshoes) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker It's not n=1 anecdote. It's the typical and continuing experience of ME patie… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
John Peters (@johnthejack) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker This is why ME Groups keep lists of “ME Friendly” doctors, based on informati… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Carol L. Binks (@carolbinks) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker A tiny minority, I might add.

—
Carol L. Binks (@carolbinks) January 27, 2018

If you are reading this, Dr Hoenderkamp (and I shall be inviting you to take a look) I hope you will agree that a pattern is emerging here: that by and large, to judge by these tweets, people with ME/CFS do not consider their GPs (or other GPs they have consulted) to be well informed about the condition. The tweets that came flowing in that afternoon told between them a very consistent story. There are many more of them below. These were just the tweets which came in from the ME patients who happened to be on Twitter that afternoon. Had I put out further tweets to ask for more, I think we could soon have got into triple figures and beyond. Even the tiny minority of patients who eventually managed to find an informed doctor recount how many others they tried before they ‘struck lucky’.

Of course, this only amounts to anecdotal evidence, but the results seem to me to be too consistent to ignore. What is more, I believe a poll among GPs would give a similar result. Here, tweeted by Joan McParland, are some comments from a questionnaire circulated among medical students after viewing the recent film ‘Unrest’ about ME. It is clear that they were surprised by how little they found they knew about the condition and baffled why this should be the case when so many people are so fundamentally affected.

NI students 1
NI students 2

It is good that Dr Hoenderkamp, unlike these students, feels she has been trained in ME but many patients tweeted to register their concern about what she might have been taught. Here are some of their comments on this issue:

@DrHoenderkamp @spoonseeker Would b interesting 2 know what you were taught about "CFS" at med school. I recommend… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Paul Watton (@thegodofpleasur) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @spoonseeker May I ask by which .@WHO criteria/definition would you diagnose ME? What treatment you… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Heath (@MEawareness) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @spoonseeker But were you trained in the, widely discredited, Biopsychosocial Model of ME, which att… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Carol L. Binks (@carolbinks) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker It's the norm in every country on earth. The medical profession mistakenly th… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Anton Mayer (@MECFSNews) January 27, 2018

@johnthejack @DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker I wonder about the quality of information given on courses and i… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
lee (@leestocker) January 27, 2018

Thanks you for being the minority who try to keep up. I presume you are aware of the flaws in evidence for the use… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Spoonseeker (@spoonseeker) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @spoonseeker Why don't you collaborate with s4me.info to produce one of your Youtube t… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Paul Watton (@thegodofpleasur) January 27, 2018

A good way to find out more about the reasons why the PACE Trial (which claimed to provide evidence for the use of CBT and GET for ME/CFS) is now widely judged to have been discredited is to read Trial by Error, a detailed expose of the trial by pubic health lecturer and journalist Dr David Tuller. The first installment (of many) can be found here, though simply reading the summary will go a great way towards explaining why it has led to over a hundred eminent scientists and researchers writing an open letter to The Lancet calling for an independant review of the study and why CBT and GET are no longer the recommended treatments for ME/CFS in the USA.

The Journal of Heath Psychology special issue on the PACE Trial is also well worth a read and is available as a free download.

Moving on from PACE, the film Unrest, which has already been mentioned, is a powerful window into the world of severe ME, a chance to connect with some of those 25% of patients most severely affected, most of whom are long term bedbound, spending their lives confined to a single room and usually with little or no medical help. I have been drawing attention to the fact that doctors don’t understand ME but their understanding of severe ME is unfortunately so much worse. This must be the only condition where the sicker you get, the less attention you get from doctors. Most of them have absolutely no idea how severe the illness can become and no idea what to do about it if they see it. Again, I am not getting at doctors here. The problem is most of them aren’t taught about it so what can they do?

Unrest mainly skirts clear of PACE and other such controversy but it does not shirk away from sharing the raw experience of the illness. It has won numerous awards and can be viewed on Netflix.

Also recommended above are the purple booklet from the ME Association, which is a guide to the latest ME/CFS research written for doctors, and researcher Prof Jose Montoya’s question and answer session on ME, which appears in Paul Watton’s tweet above. There are many more such sources of information which could be mentioned but these few which I and others have suggested are a useful introduction to understanding the true nature of the condition, an essential antidote to the misinformation about ME/CFS which is all too abundant.

There is lots of opportunity for informed doctors to spread the word about the reality of ME/CFS. In his tweet above, Paul suggested you should do a video blog about it. A great time to do this would be in May/June when most of the eminent biophysical ME researchers come to Britain for the annual Invest in ME conference. I am sure they will be eager to talk about their latest research and ME in general.

Before returning to the many tweets of 27th January, here’s a particularly powerful – and upsetting – one from ‘motherofaliens’ which came in only the other day. Dr Keith Geraghty’s tweet, which led to it, is also very relevant of course:

It's soul destroying to watch my child's hope fade more and more, each time she sees her GP or Paediatrician, both of whom are completely unsupportive.

— motherofaliens (@agirlandme) February 3, 2018

Sadly – and shamefully – children are amongst those with ME who suffer most from the attitude of doctors. At least one prominent paediatrician does not recognise the existence of severe ME in children. Instead, the parents are blamed for the child’s condition and all too often are threatened with court proceedings. Only the efforts of Jane Colby of Tymes Trust and the paediatrician Dr Nigel Speight prevent such children being taken into care. Tymes Trust have dealt with over 150 such cases already and the problem seems to be escalating.

If you have read this far, Dr Hoenderkamp, thank you for doing so, and perhaps you are starting to understand the reasons for our concern. I shall end with some more tweets received in response to yours of 27th January. I hope I have included enough to give you an idea of the numbers who have had a similar experience. There were more tweets I could have included but embedding them in my blog is proving to be an arduous business, and I too have ME..

@spoonseeker Personal experience, GP refused referral, ignored new symptoms, insisted it was ME, even though admitt… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
  (@postersandme) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker This is not one anecdote. This is the shared experience of most M.E. patients… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Janelle Wiley (@janwly) January 28, 2018

@spoonseeker IN my 24 years of severe M.E. I have never once met a Doctor who knows anything or is interested to fi… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Sarah Jane (@MissFlowerPixie) January 28, 2018

Ditto. My GP, a lovely man, said I know more than he does and has zero to offer. With extreme reluctance I went to a private doc– the range of issues I have which can be treated is staggering.

— Merrydholl🌟 (@maryqmcgowan) January 28, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker GPs views of ME/CFS are consistently negative - many suveys show GPs refuse h… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Dr Keith Geraghty (@keithgeraghty) January 28, 2018

@Adam_Bombe @spoonseeker @DrHoenderkamp @causer_deborah @DrCSGill I’m really lucky with my current GP but it took 1… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Phoebe (@PhoebsBo) January 27, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @DrCSGill @spoonseeker Two good GP’s out of fifteen bad, one indifferent... I’ve moved a lot. Am I a… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Alison's head (@arisonsned) January 28, 2018

@DrHoenderkamp @causer_deborah @DrCSGill @spoonseeker The problem is, Dr H, even good GPs who try to educate themse… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Nasim Marie Jafry (@velogubbed) January 28, 2018

And finally, here is Dr Carolyn Wilshire, responding to Dr Hoenderkamp’s original tweet:

There it is again. 'Not me!' Just had the same convo with psychologists, all eager to absolve themselves from the h… twitter.com/i/web/status/9…

—
Carolyn Wilshire (@wilshica) January 28, 2018
Author SpoonseekerPosted on February 5, 2018February 6, 2018Categories ME/CFS, PACETags CBT, cfs, children, David Tuller, Dr Hoenderkamp, Dr Keith Geraghty, Dr Speight, GET, Jane Colby, mecfs, PACE, severely affected, Twitter2 Comments on Feedback to Dr Hoenderkamp

An Offer You Can’t Refuse

In the previous post about the NICE Guidelines revision, it was reported that Prof Mark Baker of NICE had raised the issue of the right of patients to refuse treatment, in this case with CBT and GET in mind. Steve, who frequently contributes to this blog, left the following response in the comments, pointing out that our system does not in reality allow patients this choice. I think it is – unfortunately – spot on, so I’m giving it a post of its own by airing it again here.

Over to Steve:

It is being rather naïve or even ‘economical with the truth’ to say that patients are at liberty to decline offers of CBT/GET (or any other treatment). In reality, you are being made an offer you *can’t* refuse, whether this is theoretically allowed or not.

The least that will happen is that your notes will be marked that you are uncooperative and ‘refused’ treatment. By this simple method, every NHS person you meet thereafter is likely to be wary of you, or even downright prejudiced against you, and you will go to the back of the queue for everything you ask for, and any time you turn up at A&E.

Furthermore, even if you say you will go along with the treatment even though you do not hold out much hope that it is of any use, you can then be listed as ‘treatment resistant’, by which ploy the ‘therapists’ and their ‘treatment’ are absolved of responsibility when you fail to improve.

Another favourite patient dissing habit is to say that you ‘deny’ having such and such a symptom, rather than that you don’t have it: anything to make the patient look bad.

The patient really cannot win, any more than they could going up against the Mafia: You cannot refuse.

(Recently, I tried to endure yet another gastroscopy without anaesthetic. I’ve managed this several times before, but this time I could not stop my stomach flinching against the scope in a way that was likely to be doing damage, so I had to signal them to stop. This was logged as a refusal, despite me having been told to do this if there was a problem, at the start of the procedure.)

In the worst case scenario – if your reputation is particularly bad, from trying too hard to get help to get better – any hint of a ‘refusal’ can be used as a pretext for having you sectioned in order to make you take the ‘treatment’. This actually happened to me even though I had previously organised, on my own instigation, CBT with a Kings’ therapist, but my local PCT had refused to fund it! I had also organised a bed at the then Queens, Romford, inpatient unit, but the PCT had refused to fund that either. After over three years wasted in the local psychiatric services, I was thrown out (though I knew I was too ill), with the advice that I should try the unit at Romford – which had closed down two years before, for lack of patients, due to PCTs not referring out of area! You could not make this stuff up. :/

So: while, in the ideal world, patients may, without prejudice, exercise a right to refuse, in *this* world. they will be scapegoated for life, and, quite possibly, even worse.

Steve has subsequently shared a bit more with me about his experience as a (wrongly diagnosed) patient in the mental health system:

Another point I didn’t make about the right to refuse, was what happens once you are admitted to a mental health facility: Everyone is supposed to have a ‘care plan’ that they have to agree to follow, but these are more like confessions they try to trick you into signing, than anything designed to help the patient.
 You are supposed to come up with compromise plans of things you can do and things you can’t, but, if you say you can’t do something, they just treat it as non-cooperation, no matter how clearly you explain the reason. Most of the time, in my case, it was because they did not agree that my physical illness was real, so, if I said I couldn’t hoover because it left me gasping for breath, I was refusing treatment — even if I’d been doing it all the time I could get breath.
These ‘care plans’ also get personal about what ‘I agree to do‎.’ They are like what we used to have to do in detentions at school when given ‘lines’ to write as punishment. In my case they stated that I was a hypochondriac, every time. And every time, I wrote on the form that I could not sign because I was not a hypochondriac and signing a false confession would make a liar out of me. Nevertheless, the forms still went forward as ‘evidence’ of my ‘treatment resistance’ and ‘non-cooperation’.
Even if I pushed myself to do an exercise program that I worked out for myself: when I got so far, and then, inevitably, came the crash, all my progress and ‘cooperation’ up to that point, was as nothing, and I was‎ ‘resisting treatment’ all along.
You really can’t win if you are physically ill in a mental unit. Whether you try to cooperate or not, if you are physically ill, you will always end up put down as a trouble-maker when you can’t do the physical things that the actually mentally ill people around you can do.
Your reputation precedes you wherever you go, and as soon as nurses and other staff look at your notes, you are likely to be greeted with a scowl, unless you are very clearly in serious trouble that they can see you aren’t faking or imagining.
Steve goes on to say that things have improved since he got a better GP, which goes to show how important your GP’s attitude can be. The expertise (or otherwise) of GPs concerning ME has been the subject of much of my Twitter feed recently. I may continue that discussion in the next post here…
Author SpoonseekerPosted on January 28, 2018Categories Management & Therapies, ME/CFS, mental health, NICE GuidelinesTags CBT, cfs, GET, Mark Baker, ME/CFS, NICE, Romford14 Comments on An Offer You Can’t Refuse

The NICE Guidelines – Starting Again?

N.B. Please sign the NICE Guidelines Committee petition – see below.

There was some encouraging feedback from the recent NICE ME/CFS Guidelines Stakeholder meeting, an early milestone in the long process of revising the guidelines. But was such encouragement justified? I wasn’t there myself, so I am grateful to those who attended on our behalf. Blogger and patient advocate Sally Burch reported that Guidelines Director Prof Mark Baker declared: “We’re going to tear it up and start again. We won’t allow it to look the same” while Prof Jonathan Edwards reported as follows (writing in the Science for ME forum):

“What intrigued me most was the elephant in the room – the reason why we were there at all, which was not mentioned once by the speakers from the floor and I suspect hardly at all even in the groups – the need to remove recommendations for CBT and GET. It nevertheless became clear that the NICE staff were absolutely clear that this was why we were there and that they had taken on board that this was not an issue for a few minority activists but essentially for all patients. At our table the facilitator said ‘I presume everyone here is agreed on that’ – despite the fact that a paediatrician and an occupational therapist were present who I suspect may not have realised this was why we were there and for whom these remained standard practice”.

All this talk of ‘tearing it up’ and scrapping CBT and GET was less in evidence however, in the letters which Prof Baker exchanged with Kathleen MCCall (who was representing the Trustees of Invest in ME). Writing in advance of the Stakeholder meeting, Prof Baker wrote: “I appreciate that the existing recommendations are a matter of concern to some patients and groups and we will give some consideration to whether we need to modify or omit any of the existing recommendations during the development of the new guideline”.

This does not exactly sound like ‘tearing up and starting again’ so when the feedback from the meeting emerged, Invest in ME wrote again to question the discrepancies. This time, Prof Baker’s response was of particular interest. He wrote:

“I did indeed say that we will fully replace the guideline and start again…. However, it does not mean that we reject everything that is in the current guideline.”

So this sounds like parts of the guidelines are to be torn up then reinstated, which is easy enough with a roll of sticky tape but a bit confusing for those trying to gauge the mood music at NICE. Prof Baker goes on to explain:

“The problem is, I believe, in the unthinking and ill-informed manner in which the recommendations are imposed on people for whom they are not intended and/or not suitable… I was struck by some of the stories at the workshop about the misuse of the current recommendations and the disturbing extent to which they are imposed on people who are unlikely to benefit from them and for whom alternative approaches would be sensible… The current wording makes clear that patient agreement is required but I imagine that consent is not usually sought and that patients are not considered to have rights to refuse (which they invariably do have in fact).”

So it seems that Prof Baker is at least convinced of the need to safeguard severely ill patients, who do indeed all too often have GET imposed upon them – in clear violation of the existing guidelines. This crucial change is to be encouraged, of course, as is the need for all patients to be informed they have the right to refuse treatment. How exactly this is to be achieved is another matter however. As “the current wording makes clear that patient agreement is required”, what do you do to ensure such agreement is sought? Perhaps the addition of the words “we really mean it this time” in bold print would do the trick. The wholesale removal of GET from the guidelines would be more effective, I suspect, but to judge by Prof Baker’s letter to Invest in ME, that doesn’t appear to be on offer.

He says: “scrapping the entire guideline now would be massively counter-productive as it would almost certainly result in the withdrawal of the already dwindling number of services available to people with ME. Therefore, a rather more limited approach would be required to protect what is good whilst modifying what may be harmful”.

So in spite of saying he wants to tear the whole thing up and start again, Prof Baker clearly believes that bits of it are good and need to be protected. I can’t avoid the growing suspicion that these bits might include CBT and GET. Indeed, if not CBT and GET then what? A large part of our problem is that when it comes down to what purports to be ‘evidence-based’, there isn’t anything else. Of course the ‘evidence’ for CBT and GET is extremely unconvincing, as David Tuller and others have illustrated time and again, and the reason there isn’t the evidence for anything else is that CBT and GET – and the misapprehension about the condition which their adoption has brought into being – have effectively put paid to biophysical research for many decades. This sad circumstance may give us the moral high ground – from the perspective of those who understand – but it doesn’t actually help.

As Jonathan Edwards puts it: “All in all it seems to me that something important has been achieved but there is still more work to do. NICE are very clear that the great majority of patients believe that CBT and GET are worse than useless. They realise that a committee must not be made up entirely of psychiatrists. However, when the committee comes to look at the evidence the only evidence for treatments working they will find will be on CBT and GET. It is going to be hard for them to not at least mention that there is supposed to be some evidence. Hopefully that will not be followed by a recommendation. However, I sense an attitude even amongst physicians and paediatricians that if CBT and GET are not available they will have nothing to offer. A lot of doctors find that uncomfortable. They should not but they do. So there will be a tendency for CBT and GET to remain in the guidelines even if watered down. That will depend to a degree on who is on the committee. That needs some thought. Applications are being taken in June and July.”

So yes indeed, the personnel on the committee will be of vital importance. Graham McPhee, John Peters, Sally Burch and numerous other patient advocates have written a letter to NICE requesting that the committee members are chosen with openness and integrity. They have also produced a petition which anyone can sign. Over 2,700 have done so already. If you haven’t signed yet, please consider joining them.

This is important. As Jonathan Edwards says, doctors feel uncomfortable if they have nothing to offer. This unfortunate fact is the reason why so many patients with physical illnesses over the years have been treated as though they have a mental health issue. It probably won’t help the patient but it’s better for the doctor than feeling powerless.

Sad to say, CBT and GET may remain in the guidelines for this reason, if for no other. They haven’t been torn up yet. We can’t even be sure that Prof Baker’s proposed amendments to avoid the inappropriate imposition of these ‘treatments’ will be acted upon, as he is due to retire before the new guidelines are finalised.

It is good that many patient advocates attending the meeting left with a good feeling about it but, as I am sure they realise, the battle is far from over yet. As a starter, we need the right people on the guidelines committee. Don’t forget to sign that petition…

Update: Apologies for my previous PS about the Royal College of Physicians (which I’ve now removed). It turns out I was quoting the wrong Royal College from the table. I hate to spread misinformation so many thanks to Annie who left a comment to set me straight. Nevertheless, as she points out, there is no reason for undue confidence in the RCP who are to take a leading role in the guidelines revision. Annie writes as follows:

“Excellent summary of where things stand so far with the review of the NICE guidelines.

“One point though the worrying comment you cite from the stakeholders comments during last summer’s consultation exercise was made by the Royal College of GP’s, not the Royal College of Physicians if I am reading the table correctly on page 89? Nonetheless, the Royal College of Physicians said they endorsed the comments of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the neurologists whose submissions were poor and inaccurate and did not want the guidelines updated, so I am still not filled with confidence having the Royal College of Physicians so heavily involved.”

 

Author SpoonseekerPosted on January 21, 2018January 21, 2018Categories Advocacy, ME/CFS, NICE GuidelinesTags CBT, GET, Graham McPhee, Invest in ME, John Peters, Jonathan Edwards, Kathleen McColl, Mark Baker, ME/CFS, NICE, PACE, petition, Royal College of Physicians, Sally Burch22 Comments on The NICE Guidelines – Starting Again?

Have You Been Harmed by PACE?

Dr Sarah Myhill has written a comprehensive letter of complaint to the General Medical Council about the conduct of the authors of the PACE Trial. You can find the full text here. This is a courageous letter which states very publicly and unequivocally what a great many patients have been saying for some time: that in the way they have conducted the Trial, the PACE authors are guilty of fraud.

Dr Myhill is asking for patients who have been harmed by the Trial to support her by sharing their experience with the GMC using a template letter which can find it in a Word document here. Please try to find the time and energy to do this if your health allows. Dr Myhill is taking on a lot in trying to help patients in this way. I believe she deserves the support of us all in return.

Craig Robinson, from Dr Myhill’s team, explains in more detail as follows:

*** DR MYHILL HAS COMPLAINED TO THE GMC ABOUT THE PACE AUTHORS ***

*** SHE WANTS YOUR HELP ***

**PLEASE DO COPY YOUR LETTER OF SUPPORT TO cr648@hotmail.co.uk – if you feel comfortable with doing so**

PLEASE SHARE THIS POST AS WIDELY AS POSSIBLE. THIS COMPLAINT IS IN THE PUBLIC DOMAIN.

The GMC is the UK doctor’s regulatory authority – the General Medical Council. Patient support is sought from all patients who feel they have been harmed by PACE. You do not have to be a UK citizen.

PACE is the study ‘Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy, and specialist medical care for chronic fatigue syndrome (PACE): a randomised trial. (2011)’, published in The Lancet.

SEVEN other medical doctors are supporting this complaint but wish to remain anonymous – they are concerned about the impact of such “whistle-blowing” on their future careers within and without the NHS.

The complaint is one of Fraud, namely:
–fraud by false representation
–fraud by failing to disclose information
–fraud by abuse of position

There are also numerous breaches of:
–GMC Guidance on Good Medical Practice
–GMC Guidance on Good Practice in Research
–GMC Guidance on Consent to Research

Dr Myhill is asking for your help.

Please read the letter of complaint and also the ‘PACE patient support letter‘.

HELPING DR MYHILL

We want people who have been harmed by PACE to write in support of this complaint. You are free to use the PACE patient support template letter. You could have been harmed in any of these ways and possibly others too (please see further notes about this further down the post) :

• suffered damage (including physical, mental or emotional distress) as a result of CBT.
• suffered damage (including physical mental or emotional distress) as a result of GET.
• been denied disability benefits because the physical nature of your disease has not been properly recognised and/or you have been told you have a psychological condition.
• have been denied industrial compensation for your disease because the physical nature of your disease has not been properly recognised and/or you have been told you have a psychological condition.
• have been denied referral or funding for referral to a physician specialising in the biomedical approach to treating CFS/ME.

You do NOT have to have been diagnosed or have fallen ill with CFS/ME after PACE was published [March 2011] to support this complaint.

So, for example if you were diagnosed/fell ill in 1980, but have recently been refused benefits as a result of PACE [for example, for not engaging in CBT or because your illness was considered psychological) or maybe you have suffered mental distress as a result of PACE (for example, benefit applications were more stressful because your illness was considered psychological) then you CAN support this complaint. It will help our case to have as many support letters as possible.

If you feel you have even the smallest ‘case’ for inclusion then please do submit a letter of support – it is incumbent on the GMC to prove that you have not been so affected, not for you to prove that you have!

Please do email if you are in doubt or need help phrasing why you have been harmed by PACE. Please be patient – we will respond as quickly as possible. See the hotmail email address below.

Just put your reasons for supporting this complaint in the relevant section in the PACE patient support letter and fill in any other portions that need filling in [all marked in red] and then:

1–email it to TStephenson@gmc-uk.org – Sir Terence Stephenson is the Chair of the GMC

2–if you can, please send your letter by post too, here is the address –
Sir Terence Stephenson
General Medical Council
Fitness to Practise Directorate
3 Hardman Street
Manchester, M3 3AW.

3—if you feel comfortable with doing so, please can you copy your letter of support to Dr Myhill at cr648@hotmail.co.uk [in the past the GMC have denied receiving letters of support and having physical copies to collate and send to them has been a very powerful tool]

GENERAL COMMENTS

We cannot engage in a running commentary on progress but will give updates as and when possible and necessary.

We know that GMC employees or people who report to the GMC are members of the Dr Myhill groups and so we do have to be circumspect.

You may feel that the letter of complaint could be improved – good!

In 15 years of dealing with the GMC, and other regulatory bodies, one thing above all has become clear: these regulatory investigations are like a game of chess. A marathon not a sprint. You have to plan 6 moves in advance…

Essentially, we are saying – trust us! Between us we have won 30 GMC cases as defendants and numerous cases across many regulatory bodies as complainants.

Thank you.

Here’s Craig again with an update:

N.B. The harm done to you does NOT have to fall within the 5 broad categories listed in the template letter. ANY harm or ANY DISTRESS caused by PACE is ”enough”. See as follows for an example of how another patient has put it in her great letter:

  • I have suffered mental distress as a result of PACE. For example, benefit applications, and assessments were more stressful because my illness was considered psychological
  • Visits to doctors, and consultants, and NHS emergency departments are more stressful because my illness is considered psychological.
  • I am denied treatment because my illness is considered psychological
  • I am accused of wasting time, and lying, and treated with contempt and suspicion because my illness is considered psychological
  • My word and experience is dismissed because my illness is considered psychological, and I am labelled as ‘mentally ill’.
  • I am labelled as a delusional patient because of negative connotations implied by doctors and NHS staff.
  • It appears all my other health issues, and concerns are now considered psychological, and therefore dismissed as imaginary
  • I experienced extreme trauma, HARM & LOSS because my illness was considered psychological
  • I was targeted, and harmed after complaining, because my illness was considered psychological
  • I am denied compensation for my disease because the physical nature of it has not been properly recognised and/or told I have a psychological condition
  • It is my belief PACE WAS AT THE ROOT OF THESE PROBLEMS
Author SpoonseekerPosted on January 17, 2018Categories Advocacy, ME/CFS, PACETags CBT, Craig Robinson, GET, GMC, harms, ME/CFS, PACE, petition, Sarah Myhill8 Comments on Have You Been Harmed by PACE?

A (Second) Letter to Dr Phil Hammond

Dear Dr Hammond – I was very pleased to hear about your vision for the way ahead regarding CFS on your 25 October BBC Radio Bristol show with Jennifer Brea (available on listen again at 2-21)

You said: “I remember when HIV first hit in the 80s in the UK … it was the patients themselves who learnt all the research and became very assertive and demanded the best care… I see that same movement happening with chronic fatigue. We need to unite people across the globe and use their wisdom and experience to get better research and that’s the route to an optimistic future, I think.”
I very much agree that this is the way ahead. We patients are doing our best to move things along this path. Unfortunately “becoming assertive” in the way that has been so successful for HIV campaigners is being interpreted by some health professionals as ‘harassment’. I’m glad you do not share this view. We are not trying to be difficult for the sake of it. All we are trying to do is to help uncover the truth about this illness which devastates so many patients’ lives.
With this in mind, I wonder if you have the time to answer a few questions which arose from your interview with Jennifer Brea. You were kind enough to respond when I wrote to you about a year ago and any response you can make again now would be very much appreciated.
1) You mentioned to Jennifer that some of your young patients improve when they have graded exercise therapy at your clinic. When you responded to me last year, however, you said that ‘the mainstay of treatment ( at the clinic) is activity management’. Which of these do you actually use at the clinic? Or is it both?
2) You were also telling Jennifer that when you do graded exercise therapy, you cut back on the amount your patients are doing. I wonder if your approach is the same as that described in the Magenta protocol, where patients start on a baseline level which is the same as the median amount which is currently being achieved each week. The total level therefore remains the same but there is more consistency in the amount of exercise day to day. Once this baseline level has been achieved every day for 1 to 2 weeks, then according to Magenta, participants are advised to increase exercise by 10 to 20% a week. This means that any cutback in exercise is not substantial (really more a smoothing out than an actual reduction) and does not seem to last very long. Is this indeed what you do in the clinic? In which case, the overall emphasis seems really to be more about increasing the level of exercise rather than cutting back. Or do you do things another way? If so, why do you not use the same regime as Magenta?
3) Jennifer remarked that the regime in your clinic as you described it to her seemed very like pacing, but the Magenta advice to increase by 10 to 20% a week seems much less flexible than that. Even if the increase is not rigidly imposed, the therapist – and inevitably the patient – will feel under pressure to deliver it. The most crucial issue is: what happens if symptoms start getting worse? Are patients encouraged to cut back on exercise or to carry on regardless? The Magenta protocol doesn’t seem to say what the advice will be but the PACE protocol is clearly in favour of carrying on as far as possible in spite of worsening symptoms. Is this the advice given in your clinic I wonder? If so, then it certainly isn’t like pacing. And if otherwise, what is the advice given?
I’m sorry if these questions seem fussy and pedantic but it seems to me that a lot of the problem in understanding CFS is that so many factors are not precisely defined. From a short conversation, it can seem like a graded exercise program is very similar to pacing but the devil is in the detail. Similarly, so many researchers have made the mistake of assuming that patients diagnosed with different diagnostic criteria all have the same condition.
As you said in the interview: “we’ve noticed there are some kids who do improve when they have graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioural therapy – and some who don’t, which suggests… either we’re dealing with different conditions or chronic fatigue syndrome is a variety of different things.” As Jennifer put it (with your agreement): “we have to make sure we are treating the right patients with the right treatments.” This is true not least because the wrong treatment can lead to long term disability.
So I couldn’t agree more that we need to distinguish between the different types of patients, but we’re not going to do this as long as we keep on using a dogs breakfast of different criteria to identify patients, frequently conflating ME/CFS with generic chronic fatigue and even making up new variations as we go along. I’m afraid that a prime example of the latter appeared in the original protocol for FITNET-NHS, which – for no very good reason – proposed using a version of the NICE criteria which did not require the presence of post-exertional malaise. I understand that this has now been scrapped but why on earth was it thought to be a good idea in the first place? Unless we start describing patients precisely and consistently, we will never get anywhere.
You mentioned that some of your patients do not respond well to graded exercise and it would be interesting to see if such patients fit the Canadian criteria rather than Fukuda or NICE. You also showed great interest when Jennifer described the use of the VO2 Max test to try to make sense of patient response to exercise. You even suggested collaboration. Would it not be possible to make that happen? It is indeed important to distinguish between the different types of patients so why are you not using some of these (what seem to me to be) obvious strategies to help you do so?
I think it is great that you are helping so many children who respond well to your therapies but you acknowledge that many do not and I can only agree that there is a very great need to distinguish between them, not least for the sake of those who you describe as having severe symptoms for a long time. As you say ‘that is where most of the attention needs to go’. Once again, I can only agree. I applaud what is obviously your heartfelt desire to help such children. As a concerned and assertive patient, I urge you to do whatever you can to bring that about.

 

Author SpoonseekerPosted on October 30, 2017October 30, 2017Categories Management & Therapies, ME/CFS, PACETags BBC, cfs, children, fatigue, GET, HIV, Jennifer Brea, MAGENTA, ME/CFS, PACE, pacing, Phil Hammond, Radio Bristol, Unrest, VO2Max9 Comments on A (Second) Letter to Dr Phil Hammond

Swings amongst the Roundabouts

Anyone reading through the numerous posts on this site could get the impression that nothing encouraging ever happens in the world of ME. Well it often seems that way, but good things do occasionally come along and I have to admit, if I’m honest, that these posts are more likely to be bearers of bad news than good because I’m more likely to pick up my tablet and write about something which has annoyed me.

Having moaned so much about journalists last time, however, it seems only fair to redress the balance by reporting when one of them has done a good job. So congratulations to Tom Whipple of The Times for a well informed article on the review of the NICE Guidelines. Thanks also to the ME Association for providing a way round the paywall – and to Dr Keith Geraghty who appears to have been instrumental in setting this article up. I really hope we can look forward to further reliable dispatches from Tom in the future. There’s a lot of opportunity in the ME field for any journalists who are willing to consider taking the trouble to get to the truth.

And speaking of NICE, the decision to review the guidelines after all came as another piece of good news. Bearing in mind the information available, the revised advice in the USA, the petition with 15,000 signatures, and the Early Day Motion in parliament, you might have been forgiven for anticipating a change of mind at NICE, but we’ve got so used to having our sensible arguments ignored, that it came as quite a shock when it actually happened.

 

And now yesterday, another good media item on M.E., this time a special phone in on BBC Radio 4’s ‘You and Yours’. Congratulations to Dr Charles Shepherd and to all the callers who did an excellent job. Prof Crawley was less impressive but more of that in a moment. I know that a great many patients contacted the programme so well done to you lot too. Here, for what it’s worth is my own contribution, dashed off yesterday afternoon. Yes, I’m moaning again…

Dear You and Yours – Thank you for your programme on ME/CFS which was much better informed than most items concerning the condition which appear in the media. I’m sure that many patients will have welcomed it. However, there are a few things I would like to bring to your attention:

1) There are two types of CBT used for ME/CFS. The first is simply to help patients come to terms with having the condition, dealing with feelings etc. This is the same as would be used for any other physical condition, such as MS or cancer. This can be very helpful and most ME patients do not have a problem with this. However, the type of CBT most frequently used for the condition is very different. It is used to try to convince patients that there is nothing physically wrong with them, that they are simply being kept ill due to deconditioning and all they have to do is to exercise more to get better. This flies in the face of the physical evidence and when used in conjunction with graded exercise therapy can make patients a lot worse. Many patients have become permanently severely disabled due to this approach. (This is the type of CBT that was used in the infamous PACE Trial and is still used in many NHS clinics. So when its proponents say that there isn’t a problem because CBT is used for other physical conditions they are, I’m afraid, intending to deliberately mislead.)

2) No mention was made on the programme of the severely affected, who comprise about 25% of patients with ME/CFS. The vast majority of these are permanently housebound or bedbound. Many are unable to even sit up in bed, tolerate light, or converse with their loved ones. Most of these receive no medical attention whatsoever as GPs often refuse to visit them. Most doctors do not believe that people ME/CFS can become so severely ill, and wouldn’t know what to do about it even if they did.

3) The first forty minutes of the programme were excellent so it was disappointing that you gave five minutes at the end to Prof Crawley with no one to challenge her. She is one of a small group of UK doctors who have built a career on poor quality, misleading research which has only led to confusion in the field. Her latest paper on the lightning process is an example of this but there have been many others. Studies such as these (and the PACE trial itself) are misleading for numerous reasons but one of the problems is that many of the patients selected do not have ME/CFS at all but fatigue due to other conditions such as depression. Many of these will respond well to graded exercise or possibly the lightning process, ‘treatments’ which are harmful to people who really have ME/CFS. This would not be a problem if efforts were made to clearly distinguish between the different types of patient but Prof Crawley persistently fails to do this, conflating patients with ME, CFS and generic fatigue. These days she is frequently in the media, much to the dismay of many patients. We have noticed that there is never anyone to challenge her point of view. Why not? It would have been interesting to listen to Dr Shepherd in conversation with her, for instance. I hope that if you cover the subject again, Prof Crawley will not be allowed to go unchallenged.
Notwithstanding the above, your programme was like a beacon of light amid a sea of misinformation about our condition. Thank you for producing it.
Hmm, ‘beacon of light’ may have been a bit over-enthusiastic but it’s best to give encouragement where it’s due. Lets hope to see further outbreaks of truth in the UK media soon…
P.S. Yes, I know I’ve conflated ME and CFS myself. Sorry. But it seemed best to write using the same terminology they used on the programme. Advance notices for ‘You and Yours’ spoke of ‘chronic fatigue’ but it seems that someone put them right on that one. By the time of the actual programme they were saying ‘ME/CFS’. At least that’s some progress.
Author SpoonseekerPosted on September 27, 2017September 27, 2017Categories ME/CFSTags BBC, CBT, cfs, Charles Shepherd, Esther Crawley, GET, Keith Geraghty, Lightning Process, mecfs, NICE, severely affected, The Times, Tom Whipple, You and Yours1 Comment on Swings amongst the Roundabouts

Wearing a Forced Smile

Time after time over the years, people with M.E. (myalgic encephalomyelitis) have had to put up with hearing total bunkum about their condition, but rarely does the ‘science’ get as flaky as last Thursday’s announcements on the ‘Smile’ Trial, a study which purported to assess the efficacy of the ‘Lightning Process’ for children with M.E. This process (known as LP for short) could be described as a cross between neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) and amateur dramatics, or (to put it less kindly though perhaps more accurately) as a form of brainwashing.

The precise nature of LP is wreathed in secrecy and participants are told not to disclose the details. However, according to anecdotal reports, patients undergoing the process are told that they are responsible for their illness and are free to choose to live their life without it if they wish. They are told they can achieve this through LP but it will only work if they believe in it. Everything they think and say must be positive. They must tell everyone they are better. When they feel any symptoms or negative thoughts, they must stretch out their arms with the palms facing out and shout “Stop!” If the process doesn’t work, they’re doing something wrong: it is their fault if they’re still ill.

Can you guess what results this trial has achieved?

Well, the researchers reported that LP combined with standard medical care produced better results than standard medical care alone. If you look at how they assessed this, the outcome was scarcely surprising. In common with other similar trials assessing ‘psychological’ treatments for M.E. (including the controversial £5m publically funded PACE trial) it was unblinded and there was very little in terms of objective assessment of outcomes. The results were almost entirely assessed using self-completed questionnaires. So in other words what they did was to tell the children they were better and then ask them if they were better. Just in case this didn’t achieve the desired outcome, remember that the children had also been told that the process would only work if they believed in it and if they didn’t recover it would be their fault.

Remember too that these were children being questioned by adults in positions of perceived authority.

Now what was that answer again, children?

Apparently we are supposed to treat this extraordinary procedure as a piece of serious science. After all, we have the science editors at the BBC and the Guardian as our role models. As with the many previous papers from the PACE researchers and their colleagues, these so called professional journalists swallow the whole thing without so much as a grimace and repeat it all back just as they have been told it, like performing parrots. The source on which they rely to tell them what to think is the Science Media Centre, a shadowy organisation which purportedly exists to provide a balanced view of science but in fact appears to promote the agenda of vested interests: in this case those who have built careers on the backs of patients with M.E., promoting their unproven psychological theories, misdirecting patients and their families, and effectively diverting funds from much-needed biomedical research.

On top of all the nonsense they spouted in Thursday’s coverage about the trial itself, these ‘journalists’ have also been coached to repeat yet again the habitual misinformation about M.E. researchers being abused by patients, apparently to such an extent that most of them have left the field altogether. This simply isn’t true. While one or two psychiatrists have announced their retirement, at least one purportedly in fear of his life, this doesn’t seem to stop them continuing to write about M.E. or, in at least one case, issuing further papers on the subject. These accusations against patients reached their peak at the Freedom of Information Tribunal which released important data about the PACE Trial. The Tribunal ruled that the accusations had been greatly exaggerated. Apparently the sole piece of evidence produced for all the so-called threats was that one of the researchers had been heckled at a lecture.  In reality, while any abuse which may occur is regrettable, by far the bulk of what these researchers complain about is simply legitimate criticism about abysmal so-called ‘science’ such as the Smile trial.

Meanwhile, those scientists researching the biomedical roots of M.E., of whom there are many worldwide – though precious few in the UK where psychiatrists take most of the funding – get on extremely well with patients, who in many cases raise the money they need to do their work.

Though such research remains grossly underfunded, progress is slowly being made. As Prof Jose Montoya announced at a conference just last week, it is no longer true to say that this is a mystery illness. It is one whose pathogenesis is slowly being unveiled.

Only a small proportion of such progress is reported in the UK media. The Science Media Centre don’t tell the journalists about it and, it seems, they can’t be bothered to look for themselves.

To add to the misinformation: on BBC Radio Four’s Today programme (approx 7-50 am), lead Smile researcher Esther Crawley grossly misrepresented the patient support group the M.E. Association by claiming that they didn’t want M.E to be researched in children. In fact, their complaint was not against research for children with M.E. in general, but the Smile Trial in particular, which they considered to be unethical. I have to say that I agree with them. Children frame their view of the world at least partially according to what adults tell them, so for them to be told they are not ill, contrary to their own perceived experience and to what is now understood about the physical reality of this neuroimmune condition, appears to be a betrayal of their trust. Research evidence by VanNess et al, among others, strongly suggests that it is harmful for M.E. patients to ignore the way they feel and push themselves beyond their capability. This can bring about a long-term deterioration in their condition. Unlike adults, children have a good chance of making a full recovery if they are simply allowed to take the rest they need. To encourage them to ignore the way they feel, as does the lightning process, is therefore particularly unfortunate. It can push children who might otherwise have recovered into a lifetime of chronic illness.

This is not the only potential damage to children. Others have been driven into anxiety and depression under the pressure of being made to act as if they are well when they are not. Some have even attempted suicide under the strain of this.

The Guardian article reported that Esther Rantzen’s daughter Emily had been cured of M.E. by the Lightning Process: another piece of misinformation. It was reported some years ago that Emily actually had coeliac disease, not M.E., and she described the pressure of going for several years after her so called ‘recovery’ pretending she was well when she wasn’t:

“I’ve been used to secretly feeling I have to drag myself through life, forcing my body to be active and using mind over matter to ‘fake it till I feel it’. “

How many more children will be subjected to these various forms of harm following Thursday’s inaccurate coverage? And how long will it be till UK journalists start reporting M.E. responsibly?

Author SpoonseekerPosted on September 23, 2017September 23, 2017Categories ME/CFSTags BBC, children, Esther Crawley, Esther Rantzen, Freedom of Information, Jose Montoya, Lightning Process, ME Association, NLP, PACE, pediatrics, Prof Van Ness, Science Media Centre, Smile Trial, The Guardian, Today14 Comments on Wearing a Forced Smile

The Hidden Burden of M.E.

A couple of days ago, on Severe M.E. Day, I came across this post by ‘Terry’ (pseudonym) on an M.E.-related Facebook group:

💙💜💚💙💜💚💙💜💚💙💜💚💙💜💚

I’m starting to write this at 4 o’clock in the morning. I have sleep reversal, and today, August 8th, is Severe M.E Understanding and Remembrance Day.

2 nights ago, seeking support, I posted under the title “Injured” that I had damaged my ribs, asking if anyone would be awake late, very late.
People were lovely and kind, some offering a number of solutions.

What the responses made me realise, however, is that I hadn’t done a very good job of explaining the severity of my condition generally. In fact, in crisis due to the injury, I hadn’t been able to explain anything at all.

When I joined the group, I never introduced myself and didn’t explain that I have a profoundly severe case of M.E. So, it feels a little bit like it might if one was gay and not ‘out’. Everybody’s assuming how I identify and offering solutions based on that mindset.
So, in honour of inclusivity and Severe M.E Understanding and Remembrance Day, I’m coming out, but just a little to save on your patience:

I haven’t left my home, bedroom or bed, since 1993, apart from an imposed house move, by ambulance and stretcher in 2003.
For 25 years I’ve been 100% bedbound and “bodybound” – barely able to move in the bed and only occupying two positions, either lying on my left side or propped by pillows for just long enough to eat.
At a very early point it was threatened that I would be removed from the practice list if I requested a home visit. The GPs refused to visit for 23 years “unless there was a medical need” . That is, they would come out to assess e.g a chest infection but there would be no management of my condition of severe and profound M.E.
I’ve recently actually been visited by a new GP, after the old ones retired (but only because of another acute injury) who has offered to visit me once a year. You might say ‘big deal!’ yet this one visit per year is an amazing, unprecedented and vast improvement.

I only gained access to the Internet in the spring of 2016 and find that most of the M.E groups on Facebook are solutions-orientated.
After the cumulative effects of 39 years I’m physically fragile, and exhausted beyond belief, and cannot even tolerate someone else helping. No interventions are possible.
I’m intolerant to all medication and frequently experience an inverse or idiosyncratic reaction. I’m barely able to move and can’t soak in the tub, visit a chiropractor or even apply creams designed to relieve the pain and inflammation.

Due to the severity and chronicity of my M.E I wasn’t/am not able to take any action whatsoever to alleviate or treat the extreme and acute pain caused by the injury.

The reason that I’m writing this is that, I’m sincerely glad for those who are able to follow protocols and improve their quality of life, but we need to be aware that this is not the case for everyone in the group.
There are those of us still out here for whom nothing has changed, because nothing is able to be changed.
We are invisible, ignored and sidelined and for the sake of the inclusivity of our group I’m hoping to make people living with very Severe M.E a little less invisible, once again, today.

(End of Terry’s post.)

This drastically abridged version of Terry’s situation seems to me to be eloquent evidence of:

1) how very extreme severe M.E. can be

2) the extent to which severely affected patients are – quite openly – neglected by health professionals

3) the way such patients feel they have to hide the full extent of their situation not only from people in general but even from people with M.E. who are less severely affected.

Most of us with M.E, have some experience of this feeling that we need to ‘hide away’ or ‘stay in the closet’ about our condition, usually because we can’t quite face the sheer extent of people’s ignorance about what we’re going through. In particular, we can’t face the likelihood that they’ll say something entirely inappropriate in an effort to try to be helpful and thereby trigger emotions we can ill afford the energy to experience.

How much worse must this be for those who are as severely affected as Terry, for whom the gulf of understanding is so much greater, who are even more likely to be met with jaw-dropping disbelief instead of appropriate empathy.

By and large this ignorance isn’t other people’s fault. It should be up to the health profession to inform them. But health professionals are of course the least likely to understand. They are the most likely to listen to the lies of those of their number who have built their careers on unfounded untruths about the condition. And this in turn gives them leave to neglect such patients, to ‘refuse to visit for 23 years’ as has been the case with Terry.

Also on Severe M.E. Day, the M.E. Association asked a question on its Facebook page:

If you have been severely affected by ME, or are currently severely affected, or are a carer or family member of someone severely or very severely affected, what changes would you like to see to the care that you (or the person you care for) receive from the NHS?

At the time of writing, many people have left comments or suggestions, including one from my wife Chris who has severe M.E. herself and is largely housebound but not (touch wood) bedbound for the time being. Chris wrote:

I would like to see the following charities really focus on improving things for severe ME people & lobbying NHS England for this.
The NICE guidelines do nothing for the severely affected….
I am thinking of a working collaborative of the MEA, Invest in ME, Tymes Trust, The ME Trust..working with each other & the 25% Group. (I have not included Action for ME because they are not trusted by many patients, ESPECIALLY THE SEVERELY AFFECTED owing to their close collaboration with the biopsychosocial NHS clinics & Esther Crawley).

1. to establish a dedicated flying squad of well informed, trained & compassionate health care professionals in each region of the country
2. to establish the exact numbers & a directory /database of people severely affected,
3.to visit severe ME patients WHO CANNOT TRAVEL even to any centres which are set up…
4. to provide help/ palliative care to them in their own beds at home
5. to liaise with their GPs/Social Services/carers etc

Such an initiative would not be ‘solutions-oriented’. The health professionals would not be trained to expect the patients to be up and about after a few months of encouragement. But they would be willing to assess and acknowledge the terrible situation in which so many severely affected find themselves, to allow them to be as they are without fear of blame, and to shine a light on the heavy burden such patients have had to carry, while the money which should have been spent on research to address the physical roots of their illness has been squandered instead on desperate attempts to justify exercise programmes.

If you agree with Chris’s suggestion or have some ideas of your own about what can be done to improve things for the severely affected, you can still respond on the MEA Facebook page. The post was on 8 August at 8-25 am.

Thanks to Terry for permission to repost their thoughts.

Author SpoonseekerPosted on August 10, 2017Categories ME/CFSTags 25% Group, cfs, Facebook, Invest in ME, ME Association, ME Trust, mecfs, severely affected, Tymes Trust13 Comments on The Hidden Burden of M.E.

Looking at the Evidence

As you may know, a few days ago the Journal of Health Psychology published a very important special issue critiquing in depth the controversial, deeply flawed PACE Trial, a study which purported to provide evidence for the use of graded exercise and a very specific type of CBT in the treatment of ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known – misleadingly – as chronic fatigue syndrome or CFS). Congratulations to the journal’s editor Prof David F Marks for taking the trouble to inform himself about the true situation regarding ME. He is one of very few scientists and health professionals who despite having no personal or pre-existing professional interest in the condition has made the effort to look at the facts and realise that – unlikely as it may seem to many – the PACE Trial and similar ‘research’ into ME by those with a fixed biopsychosocial mindset really is every bit as flawed, misleading and potentially damaging as patients have been claiming for years. Dr David Tuller, Prof James Coyne, and Prof Jonathan Edwards are other rare free thinkers who have not been afraid to get informed and challenge the status quo – or to put it another way, to point out that the emperor is naked because that is what he is.

By contrast, those who persist in defending PACE give the impression that they have simply taken the word of the PACE investigators rather than study the actual evidence. Prof Malcolm Macleod, who was trotted out by the Science Media Centre as an ‘expert’ in response to the special issue, seemed only aware of one of PACE’s many flaws and seemed to base his defence of the study chiefly on the ‘doubtful provenance’ of some of its critics. It is another example of people being judged on the basis of who they are, rather than what they say or where the truth lies.

As for Prof George Davey Smith, who left the JHP’s editorial board in protest at the PACE-related special issue, he seemed to positively gloat about his ignorance of ME at last year’s CMRC conference, this in spite of his involvement with the much vaunted though controversial MEGA study, and even referred to it as CSF rather than CFS, apparently mixing up chronic fatigue syndrome with cerebrospinal fluid.

Speaking on Twitter, David F Marks described his disappointment that George Davey Smith did not ‘offer a pro-PACE commentary instead of leaving in a huff’. He (Marks) has offered to debate with PACE supporters in a public forum at any time. I don’t suppose he’ll get any takers. That would put them to the trouble of actually sitting down and informing themselves of the true situation.

Marks, meanwhile, has studied the facts and has drawn his own conclusion. He says: ‘“The many wrongs committed by psychiatry and medicine to the ME/CFS community can only be righted when the Pace trial is ultimately seen for what it is: a disgraceful confidence trick to reduce patient compensation payments and benefits.’ To which I would add: ‘also an exercise to try to protect the reputations of a small number of health professionals who have built their illustrious careers on the back of an unproven ‘biopsychosocial hypothesis’.

Meanwhile the proponents of PACE continue to take the cream of the research money here in the UK, so inhibiting much-needed biomedical progress; unsuspecting patients are given potentially damaging courses of graded exercise; and the number of parents threatened with ME-related child custody proceedings appears to be spiralling upwards, all this fuelled by the unproven biopsychosocial hypothesis.

As The Times article reported with great relish, James Coyne allegedly called the departing Davey-Smith ‘a disgusting old fart neoliberal hypocrite’. This may seem a little harsh but if language like that helps to get the truth about PACE in the newspapers, then so be it as far as I am concerned. And in view of the human suffering which underlies the farce that is PACE, perhaps such language is restrained.

Note: David Tuller’s response to the Science Media Centre’s ‘expert comments’ on the JHP special issue is here.

Author SpoonseekerPosted on August 5, 2017August 5, 2017Categories ME/CFS, PACETags CBT, cfs, David F Marks, David Tuller, GET, James Coyne, Jonathan Edwards, Journal of Health Psychology, Malcolm Macleod, mecfs, MEGA, PACE, Science Media Centre, The Times3 Comments on Looking at the Evidence

Posts navigation

Previous page Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 … Page 8 Next page

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Recent Posts

  • Something Overlooked?
  • Sadly, COVID-19 Could Just Be The Start Of Your Problems..
  • How Can 10 Metres and a Wheelchair Make So Much Difference?
  • The Cult of MUS
  • MUS – International Women’s Day
  • Going Back in Time…
  • Coming down the Line
  • The Vale of Strange

The Shop on Peculiar Hill

As a change from the horror story of M.E., I wrote this funny, spooky, mysterious fantasy story – for kids aged 8 to 12 and any adults who don’t get scared too easily. Now on sale at Amazon UK and Amazon.com  Try before you buy: two free chapters here.

Special offer: the Kindle versions of both The Shop on Peculiar Hill and its sequel, Stranger Days on Peculiar Hill are now just 77 p from Amazon UK or 99 cents from Amazon.com 

“My 7 year old granddaughter and her 70 year old grandfather both loved it.”

“Utterly charming and completely bonkers in equal measure.”

“By turns mysterious, laugh-out-loud funny, and genuinely tense and gripping.”

“Brilliant book.”

– Amazon customers

Stranger Days on Peculiar Hill

Out now: The second volume in the Vale of Strange series, ‘Stranger Days on Peculiar Hill’, available from Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.com

Most Popular Posts

  • Something Overlooked?
  • Sadly, COVID-19 Could Just Be The Start Of Your Problems..
  • How Can 10 Metres and a Wheelchair Make So Much Difference?
  • The Cult of MUS
  • MUS - International Women’s Day

Recent Comments

Spoonseeker on Something Overlooked?
Steve Hawkins on Something Overlooked?
Spoonseeker on Something Overlooked?
Spoonseeker on Something Overlooked?
Spoonseeker on Something Overlooked?
Spoonseeker on Something Overlooked?
jimells on Something Overlooked?
spamletblog on Something Overlooked?

Blogroll

  • A Prescription for ME
  • Disabled in Tory Britain
  • Henry Anderson's Blog
  • Just ME – Sally Burch
  • Mal's Murmurings
  • ME Analysis – Graham
  • ME CFS Blog Roll
  • Occupy CFS – Jennie Spotila
  • Onward Through the Fog – Erica Verrillo
  • Peter Kemp Blog
  • Quick Thoughts – James C Coyne
  • Shout Out About ME
  • Slightly Alive
  • The Halflife of ME
  • The Kafka Pandemic
  • The Self-Taught Author – Clark Ellis
  • Thoughts about ME – Jeannette Burmeister
  • Utting-Wolff Spouts
  • Valerie Eliot Smith

Archives

  • December 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • May 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015

Categories

  • Advocacy
  • COVID 19
  • Management & Therapies
  • MCAS
  • ME/CFS
  • mental health
  • Multimorbidity
  • MUS
  • NICE Guidelines
  • PACE
  • PoTS
  • Uncategorized

Meta

  • Register
  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.com
  • About
spoonseekerdotcom Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
spoonseekerdotcom
Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Follow Following
    • spoonseekerdotcom
    • Join 147 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • spoonseekerdotcom
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...