• 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.

The Fight is on...Imperial College XMRV Study

fingers2022

Senior Member
Messages
427
I have been ill for over forty years now. In that time, as in anyone's life I had had periods of extreme stress.

I can state categorically that stress has never had any effect on my symptoms. In fact, like many people with ME I find that a sudden stress can make my symptoms less, though I will suffer for it later.

All my symptoms worsen on EXERCISE. The more I do the worse I get simple as that. The effort could be dealing with something worrying or distressing or be having good fun with friends but it is exactly the same payback for exactly the same amount of movement.

Mithriel, I think you answer thss youself actually, but EXERCISE is stress. My own expereience is that there's little difference between physical and mental stress, hence the nonsense of the physchological vs. physiological debate. It all adds to the load on the organism. If there's a virus implicated in ME/CFS, it's because some of us are susceptible to it, it's not just bad luck. This viewpoint takes all the steam out of the Wessley etc. arguments, and lets us focus on root causes. When we understand these we can best work out treatments.

There's a lot of hot air on this forum which is not constructive. I think many views, including Wessley's, are misconstrued. If we find XMRV incidence high, and we treat with antivirals, will that be end of story? I doubt it. And this is where I believe the science can be facilitated, by capturing all these facts about the illness, the experience of individuals, and putting together a pictiure - building knowledge and wisdom, so that a clear understanding can be achieved. Disparate gropus of researchers lobbing acusations at each other wioll not get us anywhere quick.

Your 40 years puts my 19 into perspective - lost lives....maybe.

Much love.
Satch:cool:
 

Dr. Yes

Shame on You
Messages
868
OK, you're talking to a complete techno-ignoramus, but for once I'd like to give useful computer advice... Could you save it as an HTML document (.htm), then send it as an email attachment that can be opened by her browser? I just sent myself (to another account) a copy of the Imp College paper that way, and it worked fine. I just went to the article on its site, clicked on "select all" in the Edit Menu of Firefox (may not be necessary), then clicked "Save Page As...", and it was saved to my Pictures folder (Windows XP). Then I just attached it to an email. Of course, I was sending it from Firefox to Firefox; don't know what your library computer is using and if you can save docs from its browser to disk...

Hey, I sound smart!

:Sign Good one:

Yeah, I know...
 
K

kim500

Guest
This is a recurring theme in all threads and so I'd ask you, does stress exacerbate your expression of ME/CFS? If it does then there's clearly a mental component, even Pall indicates from biomedical research that stress is a key factor in the chemistry of the illness.

Holmsey, here is your error. Stress is not the result of only mental 'stressors'. Physical 'stressors' work just fine, i.e., exercise, exhaustion, surgery, infection, etc. CFS doesn't care what the source of stress is, mental or physical.

Satch beat me to it.
 

gracenote

All shall be well . . .
Messages
1,537
Location
Santa Rosa, CA
PRETEND you believe the patient

Does anyone remember which UK practitioner said this to a group he was addressing? Or where I can find the exact quote? It might have been in a transcript of a meeting. I find the advice to pretend that you believe a patient who is reporting symptoms very disturbing.

This isn't so blatant, but it seems to me to be what is being said. I feel UNCLEAN just reading it. I apologize for the highlights as what I didn't highlight is just as important. From the same article I quoted above:

CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME:
A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSMENT AND MANAGEMENT


M. Sharpe, M.A., M.R.C.P., M.R.C.Psych., T. Chalder, R.M.N., M.Sc., I. Palmer, B.M., B.Ch., M.R.C.Ps ch., and Simon Wessely, M.A., M.Sc., M.D., F.R.C.P., M.R.C.Psych.

1997


FORMING A POSITIVE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PATIENT

Nothing can be achieved without a good doctor-patient relationship. Establishing this is therefore the first task facing the clinician. One of the main causes of difficulty is conflict between the doctor and patients in their beliefs about the nature and cause of the illness. The majority of patients seen in specialist clinics typically believe that their symptoms are the result of an organic disease process, and resent any suggestion that they are psychological in origin or psychiatric in nature [4-61]. Many doctors believe the converse. Such illness beliefs are not merely abstractions but may be associated with strong emotion. The reasons for this emotion can be discerned from the Chronic Fstigue Syndrome views expressed by both patient literature and individual patients. The literature is replete with statements such as CFS is a real illness-it is not psychiatric, and CFS is a genuine physical disorder and not a psychiatric problem (see [7] for these and other examples). Individuals explain that a psychiatric label implies not only that the symptoms are unreal, but also that they are at fault for developing them. This defensive function of a physical attribution is supported by systematic studies [8,9]. Consequently, any suggestion by the clinician that the patients symptoms are psychiatric is almost certain to be perceived as a personal attack, lead to anger, and irretrievably damage the relationship.

The patient may not be the only one with idiosyncratic beliefs about the illness; physicians beliefs and attitudes are also important in determining whether a positive relationship is established [ll]. Some physicians appear to believe that somatic symptoms in the absence of demonstrable disease are imaginary and dismiss them as not deserving their attention. Even if the assessing clinician is sympathetic, the patients behavior may be influenced by previous encounters with others who were not. We believe that the most effective way of avoiding such difficulties is for the physician to inquire into the patients beliefs and to treat them with respect (even if he/she does not agree with them). It is also important that he/she avoid the tendency to automatically translate somatic complaints into psychiatric jargon or to imply that they are psychogenic in origin. This acceptance of the patient is combined with empathy for his predicament which is often not only one of distress and disability but also disbelief. We routinely ask patients have ever experienced illness disconfirmation from others, including professionals, in order to permit them to ventilate previous dissatisfaction. Such experiences are surprisingly common (e.g. Theres nothing wrong with you or This illness doesnt exist) [12-141]. We also emphasize how difficult it must be to face directly the limits of medicine-It must have been difficult for you, since no one has given an adequate explanation for your illness let alone an effective treatment or No doubt you have received many conflicting messages from other doctors about what is wrong. It is our experience that this combination of open-mindedness, empathy, and awareness of the difficulties the patient is likely to have experienced makes it possible to establish a therapeutic alliance in most cases.
 

parvofighter

Senior Member
Messages
440
Location
Canada
Why NOT using Canadian/Fukuda Criteria for Research, produces garbage research!

@ Holmsley: Bravo! You have hit on the VERY ESSENCE of why credible scientists AND patients are up in arms about Wesseley, Reeves, et al's diluted patient cohort selection! AND WHY WE BELIEVE NO GENUINE ADVANCES IN ME/CFS RESEARCH ARE POSSIBLE AS LONG AS WE ALLOW REEVES ET AL TO SELECT PATIENT COHORTS - AND PASS THESE OFF AS LEGITIMATE. IF THE PHYSICAL SYMPTOMS ARE DISCOUNTED - BY USING ME/CFS DEFINITIONS WHICH ALLOW THE STUDYING OF PATIENTS WHO HAVE NONE OF THESE PHYSICAL MANIFESTATIONS, WE ALLOW THE PERPETUATION OF GARBAGE SCIENCE ON ME/CFS. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy.
... this struck me as odd as well, TO NOT HUNT FOR IMPLICATED SYMPTOMS, EVEN IF THE OVERALL ILLNESS HAS AS YET NO CURE, JUST SEEMS BIZARRE. WHAT IF SOMETHING REALLY SERIOUS WAS MISSED. MY THOUGHTS ON READING IT WERE, IF THIS WERE FOLLOWED AS A GENERAL RULE, NO MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS WOULD OCCUR....
Couldn't have said it better myself. It all boils down to whether a scientist has intellectual curiosity - a vital attribute for the discovery of medical breakthroughs. By not using Canadian/Fukuda Criteria for research, which highlight the well-known and prevalent physical manifestations of ME/CFS, one is studying an entirely different patient population. Indeed, by avoiding Canadian/Fukuda criteria, it is possible to eliminate the very physical symptoms which require honest scientific evaluation.

MOST IMPORTANTLY - AND THIS IS WHAT WE NEED TO KEEP EDUCATING MEDIA, GOVERNMENT, AND THE PUBLIC ABOUT - IS THE DISINGENUOUS APPROACH TAKEN BY MANY* PSYCHIATRISTS DOING ME/CFS RESEARCH, WHO COUCH THEIR DESCRIPTIONS OF COHORT SELECTION IN AMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE, WHICH MAKES IT UNCLEAR WHICH MAKES IT UNCLEAR EXACTLY WHICH COHORTS THEY USED. WHICH MAKES THEIR RESEARCH SEEM LEGIT - WHEN IT ISN'T.

One of the biggest inidctments of Sarah Palin as vice-president was that she lacked intellectual curiosity - something that is abundantly evident in the psycholobby's criterion for patient selection.

Disclaimers:
1) Sorry folks, - all the formatting for some reason isn't working on this forum right now - hence the unintentional SHOUTING, when font colors and bolds would have been nice!
2) Not ALL psychiatrists are bad for the scientific enquiry into ME/CFS. It's the ones who practice shoddy science - i.e. the ones use sleight of hand to hide their true cohorts - that I vigorously object to. As noted by others, patients with all types of debilitating chronic illness might benefit from psychological support. Specifically in the ME/CFS arena, many patients need help to cope with iatrogenic damage: physician disbelief and sarcasm. (Iatrogenic from Wordnetweb = "induced by a physician's words or therapy (used especially of a complication resulting from treatment)"
 

fresh_eyes

happy to be here
Messages
900
Location
mountains of north carolina
Holmsey, here is your error. Stress is not the result of only mental 'stressors'. Physical 'stressors' work just fine, i.e., exercise, exhaustion, surgery, infection, etc. CFS doesn't care what the source of stress is, mental or physical.

Was just about to say the same thing. SW and his ilk conflate the technical/medical term "stress", per above, with the colloquial "I'm so stressed out". NOT the same thing.
 

gracenote

All shall be well . . .
Messages
1,537
Location
Santa Rosa, CA
you SOUND smart, but . . .

OK, you're talking to a complete techno-ignoramus, but for once I'd like to give useful computer advice... Could you save it as an HTML document (.htm), then send it as an email attachment that can be opened by her browser? I just sent myself (to another account) a copy of the Imp College paper that way, and it worked fine. I just went to the article on its site, clicked on "select all" in the Edit Menu of Firefox (may not be necessary), then clicked "Save Page As...", and it was saved to my Pictures folder (Windows XP). Then I just attached it to an email. Of course, I was sending it from Firefox to Firefox; don't know what your library computer is using and if you can save docs from its browser to disk...

Hey, I sound smart!

:Sign Good one:

Yeah, I know...

Yes, Dr. Yes. You SOUND smart, but I am so beyond the beyond at the moment that I have NO IDEA what any of it MEANS.

This is one of those "blah, blah, blah, browser, blah, HTML, blah, Windows XP, blah, blah" kinds of moments and then something about a fire and a fox and docs, too?

I think my teachable moment is past for the day or maybe the week or maybe ever . . . sigh . . . but good try. Really good try. And thanks for that.

:eek:
 
Messages
63
"they are neurotic and he will often be disgusted with them"

'The average doctor will see they are neurotic and he will often be disgusted with them' is discussed in "More On The Myth?" by Marshall and Williams.
http://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/MES-Nmoremyth.html

Wessely in this instance was quoting someone from the 1930s, and allegedly criticising him. But Marshall and Williams show that the context was "a chapter by Wessely ("Chronic fatigue and myalgia syndromes") in which some of Wessely's most quoted and damaging statements about ME/CFS appeared". They give as examples:

"Most CFS patients fulfil diagnostic criteria for psychiatric disorder."

"The description given by a leading gastro-enterologist at the Mayo clinic remains accurate: 'the average doctor will see they are neurotic and he will often be disgusted with them'"

"It is of interest that the 'germ theory' is gaining popularity at the expense of a decline in the acceptance of personal responsibility for illness. Such attribution conveys certain benefits; in other words, there is avoidance of guilt and blame."

"It is this author's belief that the interaction of the attributional, behavioural and affective factors is responsible for both the initial presentation to a physician and for the poor prognosis."

Wessely was writing in 1990, not 1890 btw.
 
K

kim500

Guest
Fascinating comment to Sam Kean's news item in Science on the UK Study; any virologists here who can assess this?


http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/106/1

Guest
WPI's finding of XMRV in CFS offers the possibility of blowing away a lot of smoke. I expect it to ultimately stand up. XMRV attaches to a protein called XPR1, a G coupled protein receptor also known as GPR1. In general, its ligand isn't known. It has homologues in all known animal and fungus genomes. It's found in both cell membranes and mitochondrial membranes. It's found in the cell membranes of yeast, although, as far as I know, yeast cells don't communicate with each other. When the gene is messed up, mitochondria are malformed.

In the nematode C. elegans GPR1 plays a role in the development of synapses. It appears on the presynaptic cell. When activated by the post-synaptic cell, it sets in motion the development of presynaptic vesicles. As it does this, it removes itself from the cell membrane in the vicinity of the synapse.

In human cell cultures, XPR1 rna is most strongly expressed in mitochondria-rich cells that normally have growth and turnover. It apparently doesn't appear strongly in mature CNS cells however. It's strongly expressed in blood vessels, all muscles, young brains, and kidney cells.

XMRV is known to infect leucocytes. I haven't seen that it prefers natural killer cells, but I expect that to turn out to be the case.

Viruses closely related to XMRV are known to cause degeneration of neurons.

XMRV reproduces more slowly than HIV.

Now for the reckless speculation: XPR1 was originally for controlling mitochondria, and it only appeared in cell membranes when it got lost. Later, the cell hijacked it for the formation of synapses. In order for that to work, it had to withdraw it from the cell membrane when its work was done.

So here you have:
1. XMRV attacks leucocytes and especially NK cells, impairing the ability to fight normally dormant viruses and some other pathogens.
2. It attacks some nerve cells that have relatively high turnover, resulting in orthostatic hypotension, blood-vessel related heat and cold intolerance, weakness in smooth muscles, irritable bowels, and sometimes pain.
3. In children, it attacks some neurons in the developing brain, resulting in autism.
4. Inside cells, XMRV surface proteins attach to receptors on mitochondria, disrupting their functions.
5. Because some of the cells that are supposed to be killing XMRV are attacked by it, there is a potential for a controlled XMRV infection being flipped into an uncontrolled one by stress, poor diet, watching the late late show, other diseases, etc.

Today, 00:55:37
 

gracenote

All shall be well . . .
Messages
1,537
Location
Santa Rosa, CA
XMRV and the late late show

Someone's just trying to make sure we're paying attention.

5. Because some of the cells that are supposed to be killing XMRV are attacked by it, there is a potential for a controlled XMRV infection being flipped into an uncontrolled one by stress, poor diet, watching the late late show, other diseases, etc.

A new trigger for CFS: watching the late late show.

:Sign giggle:​
 
K

kim500

Guest
Quite a curious post just added to WPI's Facebook page, mere minutes ago.

-----
http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=154801179671&topic=11214

A Past patient of Simon Wessley
1 post. Created 7 minutes agoLatest post by London Peaceforever
Posted 7 minutes ago
-----

Given the number of malefactors lurking on prominent ME-CFS sites, including this one, I'm having a hard time believing this post is authentic. But perhaps it is. If not, someone gets a gold star for creative writing (and chutzpah).

If it is authentic, apologies to the poster for my initial doubts.
 

flex

Senior Member
Messages
304
Location
London area
I was just wondering if anyone knows anything about Simon Wesselys childhood. His mother etc - was she ill. Being such a prominent figure in the ME/CFs debate are we not entitled to know if he is of sound mind or not. Should we demand that he has a Psychiatric evaluation with a psych appointed by our community. He demands this of so many of us in the UK.

Shall we play a game of check the DSM for made up disorders that are used as real diagnosis with no objective proof.

I will go first..

1) I believe SW is suffering from Dilusional Disorder- in the face of all evidence the patient belives the opposite to be true.
 

dipic

Senior Member
Messages
215
Nah, flex, I don't believe he's delusional. He doesn't believe the BS he spouts. If there is anything I will give him it's that he is an intelligent man. He knows the truth, and he knows what he's doing - intentionally distorting and manipulating the facts at the expense of millions of sick folk. If anything he is narcissistic and a sadist.
 

flex

Senior Member
Messages
304
Location
London area
Nice one Dreambirdie,

it just shows the point though that any personality type or behavioural trait can be manipulated into a "diagnosis" from a book which is essentially nothing but a collection of character traits subjectively superimposed onto the patient for the psychs personal means. Psychiatry has never made one scientific or objective discovery. If they had it would automatically be biological and organic in nature and cease to be of a psychiatric nature. From then on they couldnt charge for it.

Having said that SW is mad as a bat!!

I really do think may have had issues in his childhood with someone being long term sick. He then carried that into his belief of our condition then saw a potential gold mine as his belief sytem met up with the interests of insurance companies etc.
 
R

Robin

Guest
I was just wondering if anyone knows anything about Simon Wesselys childhood..

I seem to recall from my mom, who was a psych nurse, that Psychiatrists had to go through analysis themselves in school. Not sure if that is true anymore or if that was ever true in the UK but, if so, there's notes about him somewhere.
 

flex

Senior Member
Messages
304
Location
London area
Yeah Robin,

the notes are probably locked away in his private study with the details of the patient cohorts form the Imperial study.