She is too arrogant to say it must have been PRS if someone doesn't get better in her clinic. Instead it was CFS and she has cured that but the stress of being ill caused PRS. She wouldn't like to think she made a mistake in diagnosis or failed to cure the problem.
I wouldn't like to suggest that CFS can be cured in six months. However, she identifies her clinic as a 'fatigue clinic and I, like many others, believe that she's diagnosing other illnesses for which fatigue is a symptom as ME.
Her 2014 paper on PRS does of course, insists on considering PRS for those with a low SF36 score, which is a sad state of affairs for those with severe ME. It was pointed out to me that not once has she referred to ME in her lecture, other than in the title. She refers to CFS.
She has quoted publically on a number of occassions, the TV, radio and this lecture, that the children going to her clinic only manage a day or two of school a week, so only the most severely affected receive treatment. Clearly, those are not the most severely affected, so there's an issue with diagnosis.
She quoted in this lecture how those in the ALSPAC database are less severely affected than those she sees in clinic, so given her seemingly far too relaxed diagnosis of ME, one has to wonder if those in the ALSPAC database even have PEM for example. I couldn't identify a field that might indicate it does but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist of course.
It is quite a remarkable situation and her diagnosis is seemingly a very different approach to diagnosis than the rest of the world. Her definition of severe ME seems to be more akin to the worlds definition of mild or perhaps moderate ME and one only has to read the function ability sclaes, including one from her own charity, AYME, to see from her quotes, that this might be true.
Those more unwell, or with symptoms unexplained by her diagnostic criteria, (presumably the RCPCH guidelines of three months of fatigue and one other symptom as quoted in at least one of her papers), such as tube feeding or parlysis are patients perhaps given a differential diagnosis due to her considering the inclusion of MUS.
Alan Light's comments on dysfuctional TRP receptors being present on all cells in the body explain the many and varied symptoms sufferers experience surely means that when it comes to ME, there are no MUS, and practitioners insisting on MUS should instead perhaps be backing up their claim for any MUS against such evidence. This same idea that all symptoms may be explained in ME is also of course supported by the many papers demonstrating the physical dysfunction that prevents mitochondria from creating aerobic energy.
A lack of medicl professionals knowledge gives rise to MUPS, not a lack of medical explanation.
The Oxofrd criterian and the RCPCH guidelines very much need to be put with the history books to put a stop to those diagnosing ME without even the most basic cardinal symptom such as PEM and six months is clearly needed for a diagnosis. MUS have no place in a diagnosis of those presenting with ME symptomology. Six months is the time period that Crawley suggests 60% of children will recover from ME in; a time period curiously the IOM were very clear about being needed, after having reviewed 25,000 ppapers, to preclude other illnesses in the diagnosis of ME. Recovery is possible from other illnesses in six months. EC quotes 30% having depression. Perhaps that's all most of those have. I have yet to hear of more than two children, even with severe ME, who are depressed, so I personally doubt that 30% of ME sufferers have depression but I don't know the huge numbers of patients a doctor would.
I very much agree that her diagnosis is potentially a huge obstacle in the way of progress and the treatment of ME, particularly for children. If an independant assessment of the diagnosis of her patients were possible, this could of course be determined.
