• 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.

Cort Johnson interviews Tom Kindlon (Introduction)

View the Post on the Blog

Introduced and edited by Stukindawski

Irish ME/CFS Association Officer & Peer-Review Published Author, Tom Kindlon

Last year, prior to Peter White's PACE Trial 'recovery' paper, Cort Johnson conducted an extensive interview with Tom Kindlon on the subject of CBT. The interview is in three parts and can be accessed by clicking the following links:-

[Part One] - [Part Two] - [Part Three]

On the topic of definition, Cort and Tom discuss what CBT has come to represent in the field of ME/CFS: whether and how pacing, sleep hygiene and graded exercise are combined into this treatment. The definition of pacing itself is also considered, since what it actually represents differs greatly among researchers and patients alike.

On the efficacy of CBT, when does it produce a positive result, and how reliable is the report? Do subjective measurements allow for an influence-free, reliable source of data? Tom draws attention to research which concludes with far less favourable results than more highly publicised studies. His own work also highlights the startling deficit in the reporting of harms associated with CBT (particularly in combination with GET). In the absence of solid harms reporting, the wealth of data in this regard comes from patient surveys.


Tom collected data for his paper from 9 surveys organised by 10 patient organisations in 4 countries. 3 of the surveys, including this one, were from non-English language surveys (Norwegian and Dutch(x2))

On the reasons for the application of CBT to ME/CFS, Tom explains how the treatment is devised on the basis of a "fear avoidance" model where fear and avoidance of activity perpetuate a 'reversible' condition. Yet Tom refers us to data that demonstrates an abnormal physiological response to exercise. Repeat VO2 max testing returned diminishing scores in a pattern unique to ME/CFS, contrasting it with other forms of chronic illness. Studies which highlight changes in gene expression and cytokine storms following exercise are also noted. Ultimately this raises the question: should a treatment based on a contentious assumption of aetiology, supported only by mixed and subjective results, really be deployed to ME/CFS patients en masse?

On the media coverage of the PACE trial, Tom takes a critical look at the positive reports featured in the press. He points out that a lot of the media interviews had taken place before a wider audience was given a chance to read and critique the content of the paper. When the channels to critique the paper were finally opened, the restrictions placed on their form in order that they be considered for publication also prohibited the ability to produce a substantial reply. Tom's insights into this media coverage raise important questions such as: does the impact of this research rely on Science or PR?

This substantial interview also covers a great deal more and includes extensive references to support the points that are made. I believe it to be a read well worth the time and energy and it should prove a great resource for patients and advocates alike. In my opinion, Tom Kindlon has cemented himself as a vital advocate for patients worldwide and provides a unique and studious counterpoint to some very contentious and questionable ME/CFS research. He stands as an example of the importance of patients being able to address the research community on an academic level in a succinct, respectful and thought provoking manner.

Tom (@TomKindlon on Twitter) has been helping to run the Irish ME/CFS Association as a volunteer for the last 17 years. His activities there have included editing the newsletter, dealing with enquiries, fund-raising and awareness-raising. Frustrated at the slow progress of research, for the last eight years he has taken a greater interest in reading many of the full research papers that have been published in the field. Now a regular commenter on research, 13 of his letters have been published in peer-reviewed journals on the subject of ME/CFS (not including one on so-called medically unexplained symptoms) along with something in the region of one hundred e-letters. His biggest contribution to the field was his paper "Reporting of Harms Associated with Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy in Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" which was published in an open access journal and can be read for free.

For further information on his publications, see:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Tom_Kindlon2/






View the Post on the Blog
 
Well done Tom, Cort, Stukindawski and Biophile (and other contributors).

Good to see this all inaccessible format in one place.

Presumably this was a 'written' interview otherwise Tom appears to be able to 'talk the hind leg off the proverbial donkey'.

Re evidence of 'harms'. Its a pity the patient surveys can be easily dismissed and while the exercise studies are suggestive in this context it can be easily argued that we are discussing 'apples and pears'.

While subjective measures have their weaknesses it would add considerable 'construct validity' to evidence of harm if the exercise studies also collected subjective measures (preferably using the standard instruments used in the CBT/GET trials) and could correlate the various physiological measures with self-reported symptoms.

Might even highlight floor and ceiling effects if there are strong correlations between self-report and physiological measures with physiological measures continuing to change after ceiling or floor thresholds are reached.

One caveat being that the subjective self-reported 'improvements' in CBT/GET studies can't reliably be separated from the intended goal of the 'therapies' which essentially boils down to minimising the reporting of symptoms. A circular logic that is impossible to prove/disprove.

Thanks again and thanks to Stukindawski for the transcription/editing.
 
A timely article, giving the continued failure of PACE to release deterioration details (or proper "recovery" details for that matter). While harm surveys are going to be discounted somewhat, it's great to see them integrated into published papers - we have something to cite now, and when someone says GET is safe, we have scientific grounds to demand that they prove it in a manner that takes those surveys into account.
 
Well done Tom, Cort, Stukindawski and Biophile (and other contributors).

Presumably this was a 'written' interview otherwise Tom appears to be able to 'talk the hind leg off the proverbial donkey'.

I boldly made that assumption myself. Hopefully this wont engender any hat eating on my part :D

I'll make sure and edit that in later so it's clear.
 
Well done Tom, Cort, Stukindawski and Biophile (and other contributors).

Good to see this all inaccessible format in one place.

Presumably this was a 'written' interview otherwise Tom appears to be able to 'talk the hind leg off the proverbial donkey'.

Re evidence of 'harms'. Its a pity the patient surveys can be easily dismissed and while the exercise studies are suggestive in this context it can be easily argued that we are discussing 'apples and pears'.

While subjective measures have their weaknesses it would add considerable 'construct validity' to evidence of harm if the exercise studies also collected subjective measures (preferably using the standard instruments used in the CBT/GET trials) and could correlate the various physiological measures with self-reported symptoms.

Might even highlight floor and ceiling effects if there are strong correlations between self-report and physiological measures with physiological measures continuing to change after ceiling or floor thresholds are reached.

One caveat being that the subjective self-reported 'improvements' in CBT/GET studies can't reliably be separated from the intended goal of the 'therapies' which essentially boils down to minimising the reporting of symptoms. A circular logic that is impossible to prove/disprove.

Thanks again and thanks to Stukindawski for the transcription/editing.
Thanks Marco. You make some good points. Interesting idea about investigating floor/ceiling effects.
 
That's a lengthy read! I think it does a good job of summarising a lot of complicated issues in a way that is understandable to people with little experience reading research though. Also, good to have something like this up on PR to refer people to, both patients and those who want to see why so many patients have concerns about the way CBT and GET are commonly promoted for CFS.
 
The ME Association survey 2015 is a good source of both quantitative and qualitative data on the issue.
I'm posting some extracts to this thread.

Here's one on GET:

ME mild before GET course, became very severe after course. Symptoms very much worse after. Course not appropriate to needs.
GET is dangerous and has completely ruined my life, I do not see any other illness offered GET. I am not an idiot and as an advanced personal trainer if you were depressed GET would help you for CFS. But not for ME as like when you have a virus and train in the gym it will make you worse. If I had the knowledge about ME when I first got it I would never have done it. Someone should be held accountable for destroying my life and thousands of others I am in constant pain on pain killers to 'try' to help but to no avail as I am not offered any proper medications or treatment for ME as no doctor knows enough about it. You had to have GET no matter how you felt, told you to pace yourself after doing something and rest in between Told me to have a part of the day to lay in silence, could not understand severe ME and how I do that most of the day to cope with this damn illness.”

Here's one on CBT:

ME moderate before CBT course, became very severe after course. Symptoms were very much worse after. Course not appropriate to needs.
“The practitioner of the course seemed to think that all of my symptoms were largely psychological in nature, and really refused to listen to what I was telling her about how certain symptoms had developed and the physical nature of the illness. This made family members think that my illness was psychological because the practitioner was to them a specialist in M.E and therefore couldn't be wrong. I'm afraid the practitioner was highly ignorant of the illness confounded by her ignoring almost everything I was telling her about what I was experiencing.”
 
From Facebook:
Tom Kindlon's ME CFS & related page: News, Research and more
Thank you everyone. Nice start given I started the page just two weeks ago. It makes it worthwhile posting and running a page when there's a decent number of likes.

https://www.facebook.com/TomKindlonMECFS/
index1000.jpg