• 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 (FM), 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.

Why your doctor may not be listening to you

zzz

Senior Member
Messages
675
Location
Oregon
I had a visit with my doctor recently. A few months ago, I discovered that he didn't consider CFS to be a serious illness. (ME just doesn't exist for him.) During this visit, I handed him a stack of a couple of dozen of the best papers over the last 30 years on ME/CFS from mainstream, peer reviewed medical journals. The authors included many of the best of ME community - Cheney, Peterson, Klimas, Komaroff, Bell, Jason, Chia, etc., as well as many well-known papers from lesser-known authors. Smiling, my doctor said, "I'm a voracious reader!" and took the papers.

He didn't read them, of course.

When I next saw him, he told me he had run them by a statistician, who had told him that the results of each and every one of the papers was "statistically insignificant". Therefore, their conclusions were all meaningless. When I started to protest, he started lecturing me on statistics, until I said, "I've taken statistics." And of course, if you know statistics, you know that even if the absurd premise that each paper's results were statistically insignificant were true, the odds that one or more of the papers were correct would still be many orders of magnitude greater than the odds that the particle found by physicists two years ago was the Higgs boson.

It is much more likely, of course, that the conclusions of all or nearly all of those papers was correct.

Then my doctor showed me his sources. They come from a site named UpToDate. It turns out that many doctors use this site for their "research". Some doctors, such as mine, will believe this site over any published journal. The site claims:

UpToDate® is the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by healthcare practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine, and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes.​

As for the "CFS" content, I think it can be summarized as, "The 1990 CFS for Dummies Guide (Abridged Edition)".

Now to see all the of the articles, you have to subscribe to the site; a "patient" can do so for $20 for one week. Unfortunately, this comes with a license agreement that the results can't be posted anywhere. The results are very interesting, if you want to know what many doctors go by. However, there is a certain amount of content that can be seen by anyone without having to subscribe, so I thought I'd post links to it here so people can see why many doctors are stuck in 1990.

Here's the first article: Clinical features and diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome

The full text contains the 1994 Fukuda definition. However, it does not include the entire definition. Specifically, it leaves out the section on exclusionary cases, including all the various types of mental illness that preclude a diagnosis of CFS.

Fortunately, the list of 88 references is free: Don't read right after eating!

The content of many of these papers is fascinating, for those who have the stomach.

There are the older articles, which contain content that has been disproven many times over. Then there’s a whole group of articles that are saying, “We have shown that CFS does not have this or that characteristic,” when no one had claimed that it does. Many studies refer to “CFS patients” without defining what they mean by CFS. There are six papers with Stephen Straus as co-author, two by Peter Manu, and one by Simon Wessely. (We'll see more of Wessely later.) Some papers make no attempt to disguise their bias, such as "From myalgic encephalitis to yuppie flu: A history of chronic fatigue syndromes," which was published in 1992.

And yet there are a number of papers that are perfectly reasonable, such as Chronic fatigue syndrome: clinical condition associated with immune activation, which was published in the Lancet(!) in1991.

Next paper: Treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome

They don't call this Web site UpToDate for nothing! Warning: The 44 references here are worse than the last batch.

This time, Straus has just two papers, but Wessely has four. Peter White also has four. Combine this with the fact that four of these articles were published in the Lancet, five in the BMJ, three in QJM (a British journal), and one in the British Journal of Psychiatry; of these thirteen, four overlap with the articles by the named authors.

So 19 of the 44 references (43%) in the article "Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" were written by British doctors and/or published in British journals. It is fair to assume that the Oxford definition was used for this 43%. So we have such titles as Sharpe M, Wessely S. Putting the rest cure to rest--again. BMJ 1998.

I had mentioned what I called "the infamous PACE trial" to my doctor; he said he had never heard of it. But there it is in Reference #4, helping to guide his treatment of me.

So if any Americans thought they were safe in the USA, far from Simon Wessely's grip, think again.

Finally, here's one of the two Patient Information articles; this one is free and includes the whole text: Patient information: Chronic fatigue syndrome (Beyond the Basics)

Aside from the fact that this article is 20 years out of date and inaccurate, it's not too bad.

So who created these biased, out-of-date, and inaccurate articles that so many doctors are using? Well, the author's name is at the top of every article; it's Stephen J Gluckman, MD. He is Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Is he an internationally recognized expert on CFS? No. Is he a nationally recognized expert on CFS? No. Well, let’s take a closer look on his Web page at the University of Pennsylvania Health System to see who he is. He lists three specialties; CFS is not among them. He lists five areas of clinical expertise; CFS is not among them. What about publications? Maybe he’s done some major research. Well, he lists ten “Selected Publications”. Only two are in peer-reviewed medical journals. And the only entries he has for CFS are an entry in Conn’s Current Therapy, plus his articles in UpToDate.

Well, what kind of a doctor is he? Maybe he was picked because he was such an excellent doctor. So let’s check out the patient review sites for doctors.

On the HealthGrades Web site, he’s rated 2.5 out of five – a very low score. He’s rated well below average in every category except wait time. (Apparently, patients aren’t lining up to see him.) I’ve recently checked out all the internists and GPs on this site for my city (yes, all of them, and that’s well over 200), and I recall seeing only one other doctor rated this low. So he’s basically in the lowest 1% of all doctors.

Let’s go to another ratings site. This one gives him a 3.3 out of 5, which the site rates “fair”. This site also has patient comments. Positive patient reviews have to be viewed skeptically, especially when there are a number of extremely negative reviews such as in this case; the positive reviews can be fakes. So let’s look at what a negative review says:

Suggested that my complaints could be due to anxiety, which I currently do not have. Had he asked more questions about my physical and psychiatric states, he might have figured that out. Just looked at my normal test results and concluded my physical complaints must not be due to real (physical) causes.​

Having come this far, I don't think this is unexpected. OK, let’s look at at least one positive review – this person gives him a 5 out of 5.

Dr. Gluckman is a very knowledgable doctor. He is the kind of doctor that tells you if your complains are real…​

Oops. We see why this doctor likes the British school.

So this doctor is a real, dyed-in-the-wool, “it’s all in your head” type of guy. He does not even claim any experience or expertise in CFS, and yet he is influencing the view and treatment decisions of doctors all over the U.S.

It seems to me that it would be much to our benefit to educate the folks at UpToDate about what the current state of ME/CFS really is - especially since so many doctors listen to them, and some, like mine, will listen to them even despite contrary evidence in dozens of professional journals. Fortunately, UpToDate has an email address where people can comment on their content. It's editorial@uptodate.com. I would urge as many people as possible to write to this address and let them know that UpToDate is just, well, out of date here, as well as inaccurate. It would very good to point out the bias and lack of expertise of the author of these articles as well. Pointing them to valid sources of information such as Osler's Web and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Treatment Guide, 2nd Edition would be helpful as well. Also, it would be good to point out to them that publishing out-of-date, inaccurate information that relies heavily on the British model, which refers to a different disease, could put both them and their audience at substantial legal liability for any damages caused by physicians following their guidance, including damages caused by misdiagnosis (the incomplete Fukuda definition) and by omission of well-known effective treatments, as well as the recommendation of treatments known to be harmful.

If that fails, there are various email addresses and phone numbers on their Contact Us page, and we could try going up the corporate ladder.
 
Last edited:

Cheesus

Senior Member
Messages
1,292
Location
UK
I admit I read perhaps 10% of that, but what I did read actually echoed my understanding of the condition. Maybe I just happened upon the worthwhile bits.

ETA: Actually I read quite a bit more than 10%, though none of the articles. It really doesn't seem that off the mark to me.
 
Messages
97
Location
usa
i don't like the so much reliance on statistics, it seems that outliers do happen, and should be considered. just seems to me when the statistics suggest something to be too rare, then it is not considered possible (at all). on the other hand, (it seems to me) blood tests that are outside the 95%-tile, or 97%-tile, are still not considered to be really bad, only if the test is like 10x (or 1/10) the 95%-tile level, is it considered even remotely remarkable....

other having their go-to references, i think insurance and pharma companies may have a lot to do with docs bias (and maybe the local and national regualtory bodies they belong).
 

xchocoholic

Senior Member
Messages
2,947
Location
Florida
I just ran into a doctor using the uptodate website too. This person told me that my condition, not cfs related, was rare and not much was known about it.

It took me about 5 seconds to explain that the specialist I saw previously knew EXACTLY what this was. And as I suspected the specialist I was sent to also knew what this was.

I just wonder what specialists think of this website.

Btw @zzz . Great info. Loved your summary. This should be posted on various cfs forums.

Tc .. x
 

Aileen

Senior Member
Messages
615
Location
Canada
As for the "CFS" content, I think it can be summarized as, "The 1990 CFS for Dummies Guide (Abridged Edition)".


Here's the first article:

Clinical features and diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome

Author Stephen J Gluckman, MD Section Editor Peter F Weller, MD, FACP Deputy Editor Anna R Thorner, MD

Fortunately, the references are free: Don't read right after eating!
Wow. I was around for all of that in the 80's and 90's unfortunately. Some of these names I haven't seen it a long time (thank goodness). Straus, Holmes, Hickey, Salit, Manu ... That's one nasty trip down memory lane.:nervous::depressed:
[Edit: didn't mean to quote that huge list of articles. erased that part.]
 
Last edited:

Gingergrrl

Senior Member
Messages
16,171
@zzz It's time for you to get a new doctor and not waste any more of your precious energy on this bozo. You can bring someone a stack of articles but if they are not interested, you will never change their mind. I went down that road and it got me no where (except to new drs!)
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
I only had time for a skim-read but some of the articles reminded me of the UK governing/advisory health body NICE, in that they got a lot of the description of the illness right but then effectively cancelled it out by recommending CBT/GET. :bang-head:
 

IreneF

Senior Member
Messages
1,552
Location
San Francisco
I used UpToDate in the past, and I always felt it was, indeed, up to date. It might even have had info on POTS when I figured out that's what explained my symptoms. (This was several years ago before it became as well known.) They claim to have a subject matter expert write each entry. Obviously not true.

How to access the database:

In California, anyone can use the University of California libraries, but you have to physically walk in there. (I don't know if this is true in other states or other countries.) There are five or six UC med schools. I used the one at UCSF.

All hospital libraries ought to have UpToDate, but unless there is a consumer or patient health library attached, good luck about getting in. (Although I visited the library at a public hospital that had homeless people sleeping at the tables.)

I can't go to any of these places now because I am housebound.
 
Last edited:

golden

Senior Member
Messages
1,831
@zzz It's time for you to get a new doctor and not waste any more of your precious energy on this bozo. You can bring someone a stack of articles but if they are not interested, you will never change their mind. I went down that road and it got me no where (except to new drs!)

Yes but update the information that the Doctor does pay attention to and respect...

Voila!
 

CFS_for_19_years

Hoarder of biscuits
Messages
2,396
Location
USA
I wouldn't go to a doctor who doesn't take my disease seriously. I have changed primary care doctors several times to find one who listens and understands. One of them was a clinic administrator who had the support of his peers in a local magazine poll. Pooh on him.
 

zzz

Senior Member
Messages
675
Location
Oregon
I hope you can change doctors.....
@zzz It's time for you to get a new doctor and not waste any more of your precious energy on this bozo...
I wouldn't go to a doctor who doesn't take my disease seriously.

Oh, I tried changing doctors. Believe me, I tried. That's why I said,
I’ve recently checked out all the internists and GPs on this site for my city (yes, all of them, and that’s well over 200)

The problem is that there is a severe doctor shortage in my city. Very few doctors are accepting new patients, and those that are don't accept Medicare, which is my only insurance. My doctor, like many others, accepts Medicare only from long-term, established patients. As you might expect, I can't afford to pay for health care without insurance.

Fortunately, my doctor is willing to keep me on my existing prescriptions that I got from my more enlightened doctors before I moved to this city (although he'd really like to cut down on the Klonopin). And when he refuses to prescribe something, like magnesium injections, I'm usually able to find a way around him, such as using nebulized magnesium. The funny thing about this guy is that once I show him that something's working for me, he accepts it. I just need to obtain it on my own first and prove it to him (though he wouldn't admit that).

There's some talk that the doctor shortage should ease this fall, and I'll take another look around then. Unfortunately, Medicare reimbursement for PCPs here is horrendous - it's half the national average, which in itself is bad. Doctors lose money on every Medicare patient who walks in the door. So this guy may be my last shot at insured health care. And I think he's about 67 years old.
I used UpToDate in the past, and I always felt it was, indeed, up to date. It might even have had info on POTS when I figured out that's what explained my symptoms.

Coincidentally, I looked at their article on POTS (it was actually listed in the Related Topics column in their CFS article), and the information in it seemed quite reasonable. If the CFS info is indeed an exception, then there's a much better chance we can get it changed.
They claim to have a subject matter expert write each entry. Obviously not true.

I really wonder how this guy Gluckman got this job, with no credentials whatsoever.
Btw @zzz . Great info. Loved your summary. This should be posted on various cfs forums.

Thank you! I had thought of posting this at ProHealth; any other suggestions?

[BTW, I had to edit the original post so that it contains only links, as a moderator pointed out that there was a copyright notice even on the free material, which I had missed.]
 
Last edited:

xchocoholic

Senior Member
Messages
2,947
Location
Florida
Hi @zzz. How about asking Cort Johnson to post it on his blog ? Prohealth definitely. Maybe someone from here could put it on the uk forum ?

Imho it's important that patients are aware that this info is being used by some doctors. I just assumed, incorrectly ?, that doctors in the US were using the CCC.

Tc .. x
 

Dr.Patient

There is no kinship like the one we share!
Messages
505
Location
USA
I had a visit with my doctor recently. A few months ago, I discovered that he didn't consider CFS to be a serious illness. (ME just doesn't exist for him.) During this visit, I handed him a stack of a couple of dozen of the best papers over the last 30 years on ME/CFS from mainstream, peer reviewed medical journals. The authors included many of the best of ME community - Cheney, Peterson, Klimas, Komaroff, Bell, Jason, Chia, etc., as well as many well-known papers from lesser-known authors. Smiling, my doctor said, "I'm a voracious reader!" and took the papers.

He didn't read them, of course.

When I next saw him, he told me he had run them by a statistician, who had told him that the results of each and every one of the papers was "statistically insignificant". Therefore, their conclusions were all meaningless. When I started to protest, he started lecturing me on statistics, until I said, "I've taken statistics." And of course, if you know statistics, you know that even if the absurd premise that each paper's results were statistically insignificant were true, the odds that one or more of the papers were correct would still be many orders of magnitude greater than the odds that the particle found by physicists two years ago was the Higgs boson.

It is much more likely, of course, that the conclusions of all or nearly all of those papers was correct.

Then my doctor showed me his sources. They come from a site named UpToDate. It turns out that many doctors use this site for their "research". Some doctors, such as mine, will believe this site over any published journal. The site claims:

UpToDate® is the premier evidence-based clinical decision support resource, trusted worldwide by healthcare practitioners to help them make the right decisions at the point of care. It is proven to change the way clinicians practice medicine, and is the only resource of its kind associated with improved outcomes.​

As for the "CFS" content, I think it can be summarized as, "The 1990 CFS for Dummies Guide (Abridged Edition)".

Now to see all the of the articles, you have to subscribe to the site; a "patient" can do so for $20 for one week. Unfortunately, this comes with a license agreement that the results can't be posted anywhere. The results are very interesting, if you want to know what many doctors go by. However, there is a certain amount of content that can be seen by anyone without having to subscribe, so I thought I'd post links to it here so people can see why many doctors are stuck in 1990.

Here's the first article: Clinical features and diagnosis of chronic fatigue syndrome

The full text contains the 1994 Fukuda definition. However, it does not include the entire definition. Specifically, it leaves out the section on exclusionary cases, including all the various types of mental illness that preclude a diagnosis of CFS.

Fortunately, the list of 88 references is free: Don't read right after eating!

The content of many of these papers is fascinating, for those who have the stomach.

There are the older articles, which contain content that has been disproven many times over. Then there’s a whole group of articles that are saying, “We have shown that CFS does not have this or that characteristic,” when no one had claimed that it does. Many studies refer to “CFS patients” without defining what they mean by CFS. There are six papers with Stephen Straus as co-author, two by Peter Manu, and one by Simon Wessely. (We'll see more of Wessely later.) Some papers make no attempt to disguise their bias, such as "From myalgic encephalitis to yuppie flu: A history of chronic fatigue syndromes," which was published in 1992.

And yet there are a number of papers that are perfectly reasonable, such as Chronic fatigue syndrome: clinical condition associated with immune activation, which was published in the Lancet(!) in1991.

Next paper: Treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome

They don't call this Web site UpToDate for nothing! Warning: The 44 references here are worse than the last batch.

This time, Straus has just two papers, but Wessely has four. Peter White also has four. Combine this with the fact that four of these articles were published in the Lancet, five in the BMJ, three in QJM (a British journal), and one in the British Journal of Psychiatry; of these thirteen, four overlap with the articles by the named authors.

So 19 of the 44 references (43%) in the article "Treatment of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome" were written by British doctors and/or published in British journals. It is fair to assume that the Oxford definition was used for this 43%. So we have such titles as Sharpe M, Wessely S. Putting the rest cure to rest--again. BMJ 1998.

I had mentioned what I called "the infamous PACE trial" to my doctor; he said he had never heard of it. But there it is in Reference #4, helping to guide his treatment of me.

So if any Americans thought they were safe in the USA, far from Simon Wessely's grip, think again.

Finally, here's one of the two Patient Information articles; this one is free and includes the whole text: Patient information: Chronic fatigue syndrome (Beyond the Basics)

Aside from the fact that this article is 20 years out of date and inaccurate, it's not too bad.

So who created these biased, out-of-date, and inaccurate articles that so many doctors are using? Well, the author's name is at the top of every article; it's Stephen J Gluckman, MD. He is Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine. Is he an internationally recognized expert on CFS? No. Is he a nationally recognized expert on CFS? No. Well, let’s take a closer look on his Web page at the University of Pennsylvania Health System to see who he is. He lists three specialties; CFS is not among them. He lists five areas of clinical expertise; CFS is not among them. What about publications? Maybe he’s done some major research. Well, he lists ten “Selected Publications”. Only two are in peer-reviewed medical journals. And the only entries he has for CFS are an entry in Conn’s Current Therapy, plus his articles in UpToDate.

Well, what kind of a doctor is he? Maybe he was picked because he was such an excellent doctor. So let’s check out the patient review sites for doctors.

On the HealthGrades Web site, he’s rated 2.5 out of five – a very low score. He’s rated well below average in every category except wait time. (Apparently, patients aren’t lining up to see him.) I’ve recently checked out all the internists and GPs on this site for my city (yes, all of them, and that’s well over 200), and I recall seeing only one other doctor rated this low. So he’s basically in the lowest 1% of all doctors.

Let’s go to another ratings site. This one gives him a 3.3 out of 5, which the site rates “fair”. This site also has patient comments. Positive patient reviews have to be viewed skeptically, especially when there are a number of extremely negative reviews such as in this case; the positive reviews can be fakes. So let’s look at what a negative review says:

Suggested that my complaints could be due to anxiety, which I currently do not have. Had he asked more questions about my physical and psychiatric states, he might have figured that out. Just looked at my normal test results and concluded my physical complaints must not be due to real (physical) causes.​

Having come this far, I don't think this is unexpected. OK, let’s look at at least one positive review – this person gives him a 5 out of 5.

Dr. Gluckman is a very knowledgable doctor. He is the kind of doctor that tells you if your complains are real…​

Oops. We see why this doctor likes the British school.

So this doctor is a real, dyed-in-the-wool, “it’s all in your head” type of guy. He does not even claim any experience or expertise in CFS, and yet he is influencing the view and treatment decisions of doctors all over the U.S.

It seems to me that it would be much to our benefit to educate the folks at UpToDate about what the current state of ME/CFS really is - especially since so many doctors listen to them, and some, like mine, will listen to them even despite contrary evidence in dozens of professional journals. Fortunately, UpToDate has an email address where people can comment on their content. It's editorial@uptodate.com. I would urge as many people as possible to write to this address and let them know that UpToDate is just, well, out of date here, as well as inaccurate. It would very good to point out the bias and lack of expertise of the author of these articles as well. Pointing them to valid sources of information such as Osler's Web and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Treatment Guide, 2nd Edition would be helpful as well. Also, pointing out to them that publishing out-of-date, inaccurate information that relies heavily on the British model, which refers to a different disease, could put both them and their audience at substantial legal liability for any damages caused by physicians following their guidance, including damages caused by misdiagnosis (the incomplete Fukuda definition) and by omission of well-known effective treatments.

If that fails, there are various email addresses and phone numbers on their Contact Us page, and we could try going up the corporate ladder.

As a physician, I subscribe to Uptodate, and always wondered why the CFSME parts were like that in up-to-date. Really, as far as our illness is concerned, they should be called Outofdate. I will copy and send them your letter, and also give them a piece of my mind. Such physicians who claim to know CFS are worse than quacks.
 

zzz

Senior Member
Messages
675
Location
Oregon
If anyone does have a copy, I wouldn't mind a look if that's okay.

Unfortunately, that's a violation of their licensing agreement.

However, I did find Gluckman's full article in Conn's Current Therapy 2014 - you can read it here. It is a strange mixture of accurate and totally false information. There is definitely no copyright information on this page, but even if there were, isolated quotes from a copyrighted work are permitted under the law, especially in reviews, which is essentially what this post is.. So I'll start with the introductory paragraph, which sounds quite reasonable, at least for mainstream medicine:
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is an often-misunderstood syndrome that should not be confused with malingering or hypochondriasis. Patients with CFS are truly suffering from their often-disabling symptoms. It is impossible to successfully treat a patient with CFS unless the clinician believes the patient is genuinely symptomatic. CFS should also not be confused with the isolated symptom of fatigue. Fatigue is a common patient complaint, whereas CFS has a much lower prevalence.

Once again, the 1994 Fukuda definition is presented, but without the exclusions present in the official definition.

Next interesting quote:
Because some immune abnormalities are often seen in these patients, some people have called this “chronic fatigue and immune dysregulation syndrome.” The immune abnormalities seen in CFS patients are mild and differ from patient to patient. Most significantly, these patients are not immunosuppressed.

At one point, I had essentially a complete immune system failure, which my doctor said he had seen only in late-stage AIDS patients. He called in two infectious disease doctors, who were sure I had some form of HIV. I didn't; my case of CFS had simply (and fortunately temporarily) gotten to the point where it was non-HIV AIDS. My doctors certainly thought I was immunosuppressed.

The "Clinical Features and Diagnosis" section sounds like it was written by a different person:
Though there is, as yet, no diagnostic test, the history, physical examination, and laboratory testing are generally very characteristic and allow a clinician to confidently make the diagnosis. The typical story is one of a previously highly functioning person who develops an acute illness or other stressor. The acute problem resolves, but from that time on symptoms of CFS are triggered. Despite often profound symptoms, physical examination is persistently normal, as is laboratory testing. Symptoms are exacerbated by physical activity. The pre-CFS medical history of the patient is not one of multiple medical problems. Affected patients are typically highly functioning persons who are struck down with this disease. Diagnostic features to emphasize in addition to the case definition noted in Box 1 include those noted in Box 2.

As Box 2 is rather long, I'll let you look it up in the main article link. It actually sounds very reasonable, though.

And here are the guidelines for treatment. We're back in 1990 here.
  • Aggressively manage specific symptoms of sleep disturbance, pain, and depression.
  • Consider cognitive behavioral therapy.
  • Emphasize the need for gradual, graded exercise. Give the patient a specific “prescription” for this.
  • Avoid the temptation to prescribe antimicrobials, corticosteroids, or other medications with no proven benefit and the potential to do harm.
  • Discuss the pros and cons of using unstudied, expensive, or potentially dangerous “alternative therapies.”
Note that for many doctors, "alternative therapies" include supplements.

And now the "good Gluckman" returns...
To successfully manage CFS, a clinician must believe that the patient is truly symptomatic. Patients with CFS are not malingering. Because they often appear well and have consistently normal objective testing, they often become very defensive about their limitations. They are sensitive to the validity of their symptoms. Not only are they suffering but also they are blamed for it. Many patients with CFS are partially or totally disabled. Their outward healthy appearance belies the internal sense of ill health. It is common for relatives and colleagues to believe they are malingering. A vicious cycle of frustration, anger, and depression commonly ensues.

...except for that last comment about depression, which implies an increased prevalence in CFS. And a few paragraphs later, the old Gluckman is back:
Though it is generally wise to avoid a discussion about whether the origin of CFS is psychiatric or organic, depression is an expected consequence of any chronic illness. Depression has specific treatments, and it should be aggressively diagnosed and treated. The patient should be told that successful management of depression will help him or her cope with CFS.

So there's the clear implication that CFS might be psychiatric in origin, and more than a hint that that's what Gluckman believes. And the "depression is an expected consequence of any chronic illness" quote is contradicted by much empirical evidence, such as Dr. Sarah Myhill's statement that among the 5000 ME/CFS patients she has treated, the rate of depression was definitely no more than in the general population, and quite possibly a bit lower. Depression is already overdiagnosed in ME/CFS patients; this paragraph does not help that situation.

Under "Things the Patient Should Do":
Of the 350 studies that have looked at treatment options for CFS only cognitive behavioral therapy and graded exercise therapy have been shown to be of benefit.

Where in the world did he get this?

Later in that same paragraph...
Although exercise can exacerbate symptoms, deconditioning will also do so. Limiting activity can worsen weakness and depression. Thus, increased rest is not recommended and should be strongly discouraged.

The last sentence is Simon Wessely's official line. And yet, Gluckman equivocates back and forth in the remainder of the paragraph:
The risk of exacerbating symptoms can be reduced by cautiously setting less-ambitious exercise goals. Because many patients with CFS were particularly active before the onset of their illness and are impatient to get their former lives back, they often need strict guidelines to try to prevent overdoing exercise while at the same time getting a clear prescription to exercise. The exercise prescription should be individualized based on the degree of impairment, but it is wise to initially set goals on the low side to avoid exacerbating symptoms.

The next paragraph is a fairly reasonable one about the need for patients, family, friends, and employers to reframe expectations. But then, in "Things That Should Not Be Done", Gluckman returns to form with a vengeance:
There is no role for antimicrobial therapy. There is no role for antiviral therapy, including treatment for retroviruses. There is no role for intravenous immunoglobulin, corticosteroids, special diets, or vitamin treatments.

A lot of the treatments that have helped so many people go right out the window here. So long, Valcyte! Goodbye, Cortef! We all know how diet has no effect on illnesses. And vitamins - who needs those?

"Prognosis" is pretty reasonable, with a few weird statements thrown in:
The likelihood for complete recovery from CFS is only fair... Several features have been associated with a poorer prognosis, including... less than 16 years of formal education, a history of a dysthymic disorder, and a sustained belief that the disease is due to a physical cause.

But didn't he state at the beginning that CFS was due to a physical cause?

Actually, he didn't. And the implication here is that it's clearly a somatoform disorder, contrary to its classification by both the CDC and the WHO as a neurological disorder.

I don't know how much Conn's Current Therapy is used by physicians, and although it's published by Elsevier, contact information is difficult to find. Nevertheless, Gluckman is once again providing inaccurate, outdated information, and this can very easily cause harm to patients.
 

MeSci

ME/CFS since 1995; activity level 6?
Messages
8,231
Location
Cornwall, UK
the old Gluckman is back:

Though it is generally wise to avoid a discussion about whether the origin of CFS is psychiatric or organic, depression is an expected consequence of any chronic illness. Depression has specific treatments, and it should be aggressively diagnosed and treated. The patient should be told that successful management of depression will help him or her cope with CFS.

I wonder whether this constitutes a misunderstanding of the fact that some antidepressants appear to have modulatory effects on some ME symptoms, such as pain. An example of drugs having more than one positive effect (which is by no means unique). Shame that this one can be used to prop up the psych theories of ME/CFS. :(