• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Time for the Big Talk. How's the CAA doing?

oerganix

Senior Member
Messages
611
Read Roy S's Story, please....important history applies today

I would also like Mary Schweitzer on the CAA board, but I seriously doubt that will happen. I don't know how much one person could do anyway. She wrote some pointed posts on the cfsknowledgecenter thread that is the equivalent to this one, as did I and others. You'll notice some people there do not post here. I'd suggest reading the comments in chronological order; the brilliant people at ning.com arbitrarily reversed the order as "an improvement".

http://cfsknowledgecenter.ning.com/...com_blogpost&id=2477197:BlogPost:29711&page=1

(unrelated) islandfinn wrote:
"I am going to read your article now."
Uh oh folks. I think I killed her. Bored to death- what a way to go. I'm sure gonna miss those legs

Roy, thanks for posting that link. I found your story to be very important and very interesting.

I initially recommended Mary Schweitzer for Board Member of CAA.

I am changing that to: DR MARY SCHWEITZER FOR CEO OF CAA

It really is time for a change. Past time.
 

Dreambirdie

work in progress
Messages
5,569
Location
N. California
Maybe we could start a new thread, titled something like "what we would like from the CAA". Everyone could contribute ideas, we could discuss them, and even have polls if need be. SOmeone eminently capable (like you??? with help???) could be spearheading it- compiling lists, refining points, putting up polls.......... And we could perhaps even put timelines on things and/or prioritize them. And when we submit them to the CAA, we could do it from PR forum or we could attach a petition and individually indicate support.


This organization is not going to be able to change in the magnitude that we here would like to see without a new President/CEO. It’s not going to happen. It needs to be completely redesigned. There are certainly people here and on other boards that I believe have the intellectual capacity and experience to do that. And I truly hope that happens someday, regardless of what happens with the science. In the meantime, we should probably adjust our expectations.

If we want to be taken seriously then I think we should get organized and draft a formal document as I mentioned in my earlier post. Island Finn suggested much the same with a way to go about it by:

I don’t believe we start by asking for the moon. Probably shorter than 100 pages would be a good idea;)

Thanks IF and Lily--

I'm really glad to see these ideas suggested here. I was actually going to suggest IF's idea myself, but have been hesitant to post anything on this thread. It was so tense and contentious for a while, that I just avoided it completely, for my own fragile energy's sake.

I think a petition of our requests to the CAA, hopefully including the names of some of the doctors who are on our side with these issues, would be a BOLD AND LOUD STATEMENT. And of course, it would be fantastic if SOMEONE ON THIS FORUM could infiltrate and take over the CAA... :cool: But the one person I thought best for the job says she's not up for it just yet.
We'll have to see what happens down the road.
 

oerganix

Senior Member
Messages
611
If we could just use different terminology.

Replace CBT with "professional counseling to learn to cope with having chronic illness."

Replace GET with "pacing, meaning the patient alternates complete rest periods and some body or mental activity during the day based on the level of illness the patient is experiencing. If the patient is largely bed bound, then stretching in bed for as little as five minutes would be a suggested starting point. The recommendation is to rest for three times the amount of time of activity after the activity. In this case, it would be 15 minutes. Because of the sensitive CNS in CFS patients, the rest periods, to be most effective, should be supine with no sensory input. Cycling the alternating periods of rest and mental and physical activity during the day has been shown in many CFS patients, not all, to produce improvement in their condition over time.

"Most CFS patients end up exacerbating their symptoms by doing too much activity in times that their symptoms are less, which leads to a return of debilitating symptoms within 48 hours. This can sometimes lead to a "push and crash" cycle which is damaging to the long-term prospect of recovery. Care should be given, then, that the patient stops activity before they feel fatigue from the activity.

"If the patient is at a higher functioning level, she can start with short periods of walking or swimming, always resting afterward, following the protocol of pacing activity. Until a patient has recovered, aerobic or weight lifting exercise is not recommended and may even cause a relapse after the patient has recovered."

Notice, I have replaced exercise with "body activity" for the severely ill.

Much of the problems here are the semantics.

Tina

Bottom line, a huge distinction needs to be made between COPING stategies and TREATMENT. Some of the original stuff on CAA said that CBT/GET didn't TREAT all symptoms, but....yadayadayada.

In fact, it doesn't treat ANY of the symptoms, and I, for one, would like to have the whole exercise/CBT issue minimized. It is really just a distraction from real treatments for our symptoms.

I'd like to hear more about Ampligen, stem cell treatments, anti-virals, etc.

And not another word from the psychobabble school of doublespeak.
 
R

Robin

Guest
Or that the defintions of CBT and GET in the abstract, and application of those methods in real life by doctors who truly understand CFS, and application of those methods in real life by doctors who do NOT truly understand CFS, and mention of these methods in the media, and what people hear when those terms are used - that none of these are in alignment.

Any other advocacy organization would have a clear position paper about something that is known to harm their patients. They would also clearly define those ambiguities tina mentioned.

Could you imagine the American Heart Association qualifying smoking? ("Well, it helps some people cope but it's really bad for other people...") The American Diabetes Association being ambiguous about sugar?

From the CAA website:
CFS can be exacerbated by vigorous physical activity. A paced, graded approach to exercise and activity management is recommended to avoid overactivity and to prevent deconditioning.

Only vigorous activity exacerbates symptoms?

Dr. Yes said:
does the CAA represent only a higher functioning population of ME/CFS patients, to the relative or complete exclusion of lower functioning ones? Their literature and advocacy efforts do indeed reflect this.

Apparently!! For those of us whose symptoms are exacerbated by very mild to barely any physical activity? Too bad!

To me, this is an analogy of the wrongness of what the CAA is saying:

Diabetes can be exacerbated by consuming refined sugar. A paced, graded approach to sugar eating is recommended to avoid overconsuming sugar...

If the American Diabetes Association was giving out that information it could lead to an organ damaging blood sugar crisis. Why is that any different from the CAA giving out information that could lead to a permanent collapse of health from graded exercise? It's absurd!!

To Jspotila: having a position paper about exercise that represents the needs of all patients would be an area where the CAA could really improve.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
I don't have much time to discuss things today as four generations are here for Easter. But basically CBT is a loaded phrase. It's a bit like saying people with ME/CFS need behaviour therapy. It has negative connotations. We may need advice on dealing with the illness and there may be scope for people to improve in their behaviours but that doesn't mean they need a psychiatric intervention for people with maladaptive beliefs and behaviours.
 

leelaplay

member
Messages
1,576
I don't have much time to discuss things today as four generations are here for Easter. But basically CBT is a loaded phrase. It's a bit like saying people with ME/CFS need behaviour therapy. It has negative connotations. We may need advice on dealing with the illness and there may be scope for people to improve in their behaviours but that doesn't mean they need a psychiatric intervention for people with maladaptive beliefs and behaviours.

So precise and clear Tom - it bears repeating (4 generations - how nice!).

And Robin - perfect analogies.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
So precise and clear Tom - it bears repeating (4 generations - how nice!).

And Robin - perfect analogies.

first thing for the CAA stop propagating psycho propaganda.Only refer to scientific research in its "educative" capacity.If it does not involve objective measurements and statistical treatment of the results it is not scientific it is speculative.
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
I agree with Tom above.. it's not just a matter of semantics. And I would add that similarly, there is a world of difference between 'graded' exercise and 'pacing' in the original sense -- the term 'pacing', by the way, is itself slowly being co-opted by some of those who used to push GET but they are changing the definition, as usual, in this case making it more like GET.

The core principle of GET is a gradual but fairly steady increase in activity levels (some are less hard-line about the steadiness than others, but the goal is the same). This simply discounts the reality that the vast majority of ME/CFS patients have an 'activity ceiling' beyond which they cannot continue to increase levels, and that at any time they might experience relapses or other setbacks and cannot return swiftly to the previous activity level. Further, it ignores the physiological risks associated with physical exertion in ME/CFS, which can be more insidious than a mere single-event push-crash phenomenon; rather, it appears that it can also be the result of cumulative, sustained activity over time, even if daily effects are hardly noticeable for some time.

CAA and other literature have indeed over time substituted the term 'activity' for 'exercise', but the concept of graded or gradual increase is almost invariably attached.

Pacing, especially as related to 'Envelope Theory', does not call for gradual increase in activity levels. But, as I mentioned above, some spins on the pacing concept do incorporate the idea of graded increase, making it in effect a kind of "GET Lite".

I strongly advise that the only behavioral therapy recommended at all in CAA literature be standard supportive counseling, as would be recommended to anyone dealing with a severely disabling, life-altering chronic illness or injury. That is, after all, exactly what we have, is it not? As for activity, the focus should be on Envelope Theory, pacing within that context, and an emphasis on the hazards of graded exercise/activity regimens (rather than promotion of them). Then, instead of a postscript about the potential risks of exercise in more severe patients, there could be a postscript about the potential benefits of carefully monitored exercise in less severe patients. A general encouragement to remain as active as is safely possible within one's "energy envelope" at any given time in order to maximize health and avoid deconditioning would of course be appropriate (with the mention of potential risks even here for the most severely ill patients, of course).

Hi Doc

How about the following;
All chronic debilitating conditions can adversly affect the suffers psychological wellbeing.CBT is therefore as appropiate in ME as it would be in any other chronic debilitating illness
GET is as useful for ME patients as it would be for any other neurological disorder as defined by the WHO. Drs should also be aware of the potential for litigation should a patient suffer adverse effects as a result of recommending this unproven option.

Same information exactly but put in a more advocative manner!
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
All these surveys use self reports and definitions of terms which are not their ordinary meaning What does helped a lot actually mean when looked at objectively or helped a little for that matter!

i would like to see the questionaires if possible

Did they ask for any objective measures like can you walk further now If so How much further etc
 
G

Gerwyn

Guest
Also what is happening more in the UK and possibly in other countries (it is to an extent in Ireland) is that pressure is being put on patients to do GET and/or CBT based on GET before they will get disability payments or disability pensions from insurance companies.

Normally if an intervention (e.g. surgery) had such high rates of adverse reactions, patients would have freedom to choose not to undergo it. But because "it's only exercise" and "exercise is good for you" (these aren't exact quotes, just paraphrasing thinking) along with the "evidence" for CFS specifically, choice is being taken away.

Also patients can be seen as "non-compliant" if they don't finish the exercise programs.

Information on 10 other surveys can also be found at: http://sacfs.asn.au/news/2009/09/09_20_adverse_reactions_to_get.htm (i.e. 11 in total if one includes the one I highlighted in the comments).

------
Having the message out there that more exercise or more activity is good for patients can mean they might not get the other supports they might like. One can see Peter White/Barts CFS/CF service showing their approach in item (i) at: http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...into-their-views&p=23744&viewfull=1#post23744 . Such attitudes can even influence family members.

A drug with that level of adverse affects would not get a liscence especially without any scientific evidence of efficacy
 

starryeyes

Senior Member
Messages
1,558
Location
Bay Area, California
Dr. Yes wrote: This means we are left with the impression that their may be an acceptance of this kind of un-scientific ideology by some in the CAA, which of course would be absolutely unacceptable! (This impression is of course fueled by the concerns over CBT/GET endorsement...

You have gotten to the heart of the matter Dr. Yes. I have not seen the new CME (Continuing Medical Educational materials) for doctors that I believe the CAA has put out, have any of you? If memory serves me correctly :rolleyes: you have to pay to have access to them. I'd like to know if they also contain this psychobabble.
 

Lily

*Believe*
Messages
677
I read them Teej, a few weeks ago when Cort referred to them again. You don't have to pay for access. They mention CBT and GET if I remember correctly......
 

usedtobeperkytina

Senior Member
Messages
1,479
Location
Clay, Alabama
That is what I am saying, ditch the confusing and loaded terms of GET and CBT completely.

Instead, say "professional counseling may be helpful to guide the patient in making adjustments and accepting the limitations of having a chronic and debilitating illness." I don't want to see CBT, even with caveat explanation of it anywhere in an authoritative CFS literature. Bad, bad word. Just leave it out. "professional counseling" is sufficient. And spelled out, it is fewer letters than cognitive behavioral therapy.

As for GET, I would avoid the word "exercise" because most people, no doubt docs included, think of aerobics and weight lifting as exercise. I would use "body activity".

But I do think the "exercise" issue needs to be addressed in information to patients and doctors, only because they will go the wrong direction based on understanding of fatigue in general, other illnesses and understanding of body. Diabetes has fatigue, yet exercise is good for them. Something needs to be in the literature to correct the paradigm.

The best helpful advice I got when I got sick was to not push it. I read a book by a dentist in Australia who had CFS and he talked about starting off not getting out of bed for three months. Wow, that's extreme, I thought. Then I went to FFC which recommended bed stretching, even finger push ups if that is all you can do. This totally changed my paradigm from the way I thought as a healthy person to making the changes I needed to start recovery. And, three years later, I had crawled out of the hole.

People do recover or see improvement with CFS. And some are not as severely affected as to be bed bound. I think this is part of the problem. CAA or any advice to patients or doctors need to explain the proper body activity for CFS patients (since they will likely suggest or do the wrong level or type if they don't get any advice). But it will vary drastically according to patient's level. How to address it, yet explain the variability based on illness severity is tough. But that is what I tried to do in my earlier post.

This is not a new concept. Someone with MS can be in remission. They can be to the point they stumble sometimes. Or they can be wheelchair bound.

And, if you start off as I did, with stretching in bed. In time, you might be able to do more, as you recover. Most of us do see improvement, if not recovery. So you wouldn't say the person who can now garden for thirty minutes a day (rest period following, of course) should still be only stretching in bed.

So I have no problem with gradual increase of body activity, as the physical condition allows, being careful to not exacerbate the symptoms by doing too much. For some, that may mean they don't increase.

But I don't think there is a threshold where if you have CFS you will never be able to do this or that. Last summer, I was feeling so well for so many months, I actually thought I might be able to one day go hiking or canoeing again. I got the flu which brought on a crash that I am still trying to climb out of. I see no hope of that at this point. But that is beside the point. I did improve to the point I could do a lot of activity I formerly could not do. And it was not causing crashes for many months.

I guess I am saying it needs to be addressed because of the misinformation, doctor ignorance and patient tendency to do too much. But we are all at different levels. And most of us will see improvement, meaning we can and should do more as long as we don't do too much and make ourselves sicker.

I thought my long paragraphs earlier were a way to address all these issues while avoiding the loaded words of CBT and GET.

Tina
 

usedtobeperkytina

Senior Member
Messages
1,479
Location
Clay, Alabama
I also want to say that I complained about the composite accounts of CFS patients on the Solve CFS page. I felt like using fake accounts, especially with the woman's voice telling the account, gives the appearance that it is a real person, drawing you in with sympathy. But then at the end, the reader is betrayed by finding out the voice is not a real CFS patient and the account is only an example, despite it reading like a woman who has experienced it.

And when I got a Solve CFS flier that actually quoted these fictional people. As a news reporter, it flew all over me.

Jennie evidently took my complaint to CAA and they have taken off the composite accounts.

My point was that what we need is real people, real facts, real accounts, etc. Last thing we need is anything to cast doubt on the credibility of our illness or symptoms with fake people and fictional (they call composite) accounts of what it is like to be sick. Real sick people, real accounts, real facts, etc. will add credibility.

It was pointed out to me that some people give real accounts to be used and then are upset when it is used in other promotional material. That is hard to keep up with and is full of landmines. I say that if they have someone's personal account, make them sign a release that the personal account can be edited for space and CAA can use it later for other promotional campaigns in any media.

I have sent my personal account. But it is long. I have no problem with them editing it for space or to make a point. For example, one version may make the point of difficulty in finding a knowledgeable doctor, so more of that detail is included while another might focus on loss of career.

I just wanted to say thank you to Jenny. I also wanted to point out that CAA does respond to patients.

While I think some attention needs to be given to a public awareness campaign, a neglected part of "awareness" and "advocacy" so far in the whole CFS history, to be honest, their whole focus in research was in response to patient requests. They don't have money to do it all. (another sad part of the story of our illness that we don't have one big organization that can do it all for us. Fragmented again.)

I encourage us all to continue giving feedback and calling CAA into account. They are listening and responding.

Tina
 

Lily

*Believe*
Messages
677
I read them Teej, a few weeks ago when Cort referred to them again. You don't have to pay for access. They mention CBT and GET if I remember correctly......

Just skimmed it again - THERE's NO GET - sorry, sorry, sorry - there's only CBT and there's mention of pacing. When I read it initially, I remember I thought it was good and also beneficial for patients. I wouldn't have felt that way if it have referred to GET Just a little muddled today, sorry about the reference to GET.

ETA: For clarification this post refers to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: From Diagnosis to Management
Marcia Harmon; Lucinda Bateman, MD; Charles Lapp, MD; K. Kimberly McCleary

offered as physician and nurse education through Medscape in 2008, so it's not really new. The course is still available however, Continuing Medical Education units are no longer available as the time period has expired.