Sunday Times: Feature Article expected soon

[Firestormm]

Just picked the following up on ME Association Facebook:

Dr Charles Shepherd:

"Had a fairly long and amicable chat this evening with the journalist who is writing the feature on ME/CFS for the Sunday Times.

From what we covered this evening in my hotel I don't think this item is going to be looking at anything new in relation to both politics and research.

So it looks as though this article is going to cover the debate re nomenclature and sub-grouping (ME vs CFS), XMRV saga, PACE trial (including 'recovery' paper and House of Lords debate) CBT and GET - what do they involve? why are they so controversial? and all the usual stuff about hate mail: Who does it? (a minute minority - some of whom probably have a personality disorder rather than ME)And why to they do it? (because they are angry at the lack of biomedical research and clinical trials aimed at people who do not fit into the psychosocial model of causation >> an illness perpetuated by abnormal illness beliefs and behaviours + the resulting deconditioning and inactivity). Not that this justifies this type of activity."

Apparently the Journalist is a chap named Hanlon but I've asked for some confirmation of that. I'd be interested of course to read his take on matters pertaining to PACE and the latest paper more than anything else I think. Hopefully as he's taken the time to consult others it won't prove a hatchet job

 

[Shell]

Ye gods, I don't know how he has the patience to answer the same questions over and over; proving, if there were need, that we are not making much headway among the media crowd.

 

[biophile]

I think Hanlon was the writer who stepped into a pile of mud when talking about ME as a possible mental illness on his blog, but after criticism he showed somewhat hopeful signs of actually trying to understand what was going on even if he did not really understand yet. Beginner ignorance is more workable than seasoned arrogance.

 

[Min]

Unfortunately Charles Shepherd always fuels the 'all M.E. patients are extremists' propaganda by insisting that he is their target too.

He never points out that there is no evidence whatsoever that any M.E. patient has ever sent hate mail etc., and that none has ever been prosecuted.

Expect another wishy washy article that plays into the hands of White/Wessely/Crawley etc - the so-called specialists who love to vilify us whilst misappropriating all our treatment and research funding.

 

[Ian McLachlan]

I have posted the following as it is of interest.
Ian


My (Angela Kennedy) email correspondence with Journalist Michael Hanlon regarding a
proposed Sunday Times article


PERMISSION TO REPOST

Angela Kennedy
6th February 2013


I have today seen comments made by Charles Shepherd on the ME Association Facebook wall, regarding an article being written by a journalist from the Sunday Times:

“Had a fairly long and amicable chat this evening with the journalist who is writing the feature on ME/CFS for the Sunday Times. From what we covered this evening in my hotel I don't think this item is going to be looking at anything new in relation to both politics and research.... So it looks as though this article is going to cover the debate re nomenclature and sub-grouping (ME vs CFS), XMRV saga, PACE trial (including 'recovery' paper and House of Lords debate), CBT and GET - what do they involve? why are they so controversial? and all the usual stuff about hate mail: Who does it? (a minute minority - some of whom probably have a personality disorder rather than ME) And why to they do it? (because they are angry at the lack of biomedical research and clinical trials aimed at people who do not fit into the psychosocial model of causation >> an illness perpetuated by abnormal illness beliefs and behaviours + the resulting deconditioning and inactivity). Not that this justifies this type of activity.”

In light of Dr Shepherd's extremely worrying revelations here, and recent misrepresentations of patient concerns in an academic journal, I believe that I should now reveal that I was approached by a journalist, Michael Hanlon in regard to this proposed article in December 2012. Below is all the email correspondence I had with Mr Hanlon (my only form of interaction with him). I should also explain that I have heard nothing further from Mr Hanlon after I declined the lunch invitation on 7 December 2013.

I had intended to wait until after the article was published before publicising my full correspondence with Mr Hanlon. However, because I am concerned at the content of Dr Shepherd's post above and its implications for how this article will be written, I believe it is important for readers to understand the exact context in which information was given to Mr Hanlon, before the article is published. I believe that journalists have a duty to make fair and accurate representation of the issues they cover and the people they interview, and at this time I am hoping the transparency and accuracy of my own actions here will be mirrored in the Sunday Times article when it is published.


The email correspondence below is in chronological order.

ANGELA KENNEDY

----- Original Message -----
From: Hanlon, Michael
To: angelakennedy372@btinternet.com
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 11:10 AM
Subject: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Angela

I am a science journalist and I have been commissioned to write a piece for the Sunday Times magazine about ME patient-support groups.

This is in the light of recent findings regarding XMRV, the continuing controversies regarding the PACE trials and the recent prize awarded to Simon Wessely.

Would you be prepared to chat with me, either on- or off-the-record?

Best regards
Michael Hanlon


----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:49 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Michael,
Thank you very much for your email. I will be very happy to chat with you via email in the first instance, if that is ok. This is because talking by phone is difficult for me because of my daughter's care needs.

I can also send you relevant sources that explain my position in this situation, and if you would like a complimentary copy of my book (of which I presume you are aware) - let me know the address and I will send.

Best wishes
Angela Kennedy


----- Original Message -----
From: Hanlon, Michael
To: ANGELA KENNEDY
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Angela

Thank you for taking time to reply.

I have to say at the outset where I am, what (if any) agenda I have and what I hope to write about. Never believe a journalist who says they don't have an agenda - we all do. But at least I will try to lay my cards on the table.

I have been a science journalist for 20 years and, as such, I count myself as broadly 'pro-science'. I tend to side with sceptics and rationalists, materialists and those who obsess about evidence-based medicine. I distrust homeopathy, people who worry about electrosmog and people who claim to have seen UFOs.

But M.E.? I admit I am baffled. When I first picked up on the whole debate, if that is not too polite a word, between the likes of Simon Wessely who believe that M.E is basically a psychogenic condition that can be treated by CBT and other techniques, and those who insist that M.E. is the result of an infection or immune system malfunction, I was mystified.

My initial reaction has been to side totally with the psychiatrists. I have seen some of the emails and so forth that have been sent, told about the FOI requests, reports to the GMC and so on and find it weird, at best, that this is happening.

But clearly people feel very strongly about this and I want to know why. Perhaps you can tell me?

I have written about many controversies - animal experimentation, global warming, MMR and so on but even a brief delve into the Internet shows me that there is a volcano of an issue here.

So, my first question. You are prominent among those who would like to see ME treated as a 'proper' illness (not psychogenic). What informs this view?

Do you condemn - unreservedly - those small number of people who appear to have issued threats, however vague, against people like Simon Wessely? You are quoted as saying that you believe these threats are a storm in a teacup, that Wessely et al are over-reacting. Is this the case?

I have spoken to Simon Wessely and he seems a decent, humane man. Do you accept that he is decent and humane, even if you disagree with his methods and point of view regarding this disease?

How did you react to the recent news that XMRV is probably not the causal agent of ME?

Did you previously believe it was? If not XMRV, then what do you believe causes ME?

Are you still in contact with Jane Bryant?

Have you ever met your opponents and debated with them? Do you believe it is possible to have a mature and reasoned debate over a matter of what amounts to a major scientific and medical disagreement?

I look forward to hearing from you, and your view on any of these issues.

Best regards
Mike


----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Tuesday, December 04, 2012 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Mike,
I will hopefully be able to answer your questions within the next few hours. In the meantime I enclose three links which you should look at to get a reasonably clear idea of where I am actually 'coming from':

1. The link to my book on Amazon gives the first few pages of the Introduction on its 'look inside' facility. The first three pages will I believe be most useful to you, though I would also recommend you read the back cover, which also gives my academic research interests as a social sciences lecturer and researcher.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Authors-Our-Misf...800&sr=8-1

2. A publicly available statement I have made about dematory claims made about me with regard to Professor Wessely.

http://mywikibiz.com/images/2/2b/Stateme...ssment.pdf

3. My complaint to the Lancet about the PACE trial:
http://mywikibiz.com/images/7/74/Complai...rticle.pdf
Best wishes
Angela

----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2012 1:28 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Mike,
For ease of reference I have preceded your questions with a Q, and my answers with an A (should make things clearer hopefully!)

Firstly I should tell you that I too count myself as (colloquially) 'pro-science' (though with some caveats), with a rationalist, materialist concern that science and social science, proceeds with empirical adequacy, and rational, coherent argument within a critically analytical framework: and that all underlies my critiques of psychogenic explanations for physical illnesses like ME, particularly the analysis I undertake in my book.

I am concerned that you seem to believe FOI requests and reports to the GMC constitute harassment. These are publicly available legitimate courses of action, through official channels, for people who have concerns or complaints about certain situations. I'm confident you would not think anyone who has ever made a complaint to the GMC, written to an employer, or asked for information under FOI is guilty of harassment per se. Journalists use FOI requests, for example. These were mentioned three times on Panorama the other night; and have been used by BBC reporters since 2005:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/uk/2...efault.stm

There are specific, legitimate and rational reasons people are taking these - again, legitimate - courses of action. As you will have seen from the links I gave you, there are specific reasons I have had occasion to complain about the PACE trial, and write to an employer, neither of which can be remotely considered as 'harassment'. I would say, if I may advise you, that you should dig deeper on those reasons.

Q: So, my first question. You are prominent among those who would like to see ME treated as a 'proper' illness (not psychogenic). What informs this view?

A: Your above comment does not accurately reflect my position. This is why I would ask you to read the first three pages and back cover of my book via the Amazon link I gave you to get an idea of where I am coming from. There are a very important distinctions between your above assessment of my position and what my position actually is, not least being that I do not consider psychiatric illnesses as 'improper' or 'not real', which is what your description implies (whether or not you meant it like that). But to give a summary of where I am coming from: I am concerned about psychogenic misdiagnosis, which leads to psychogenic dismissal of serious physical illness, which leads to patients' lives, health and quality of life being endangered. Psychogenic misdiagnoses have led to tragic, premature deaths, and to prejudicial treatment by health, educational, social and benefits agencies, even communities and families.

It is also untrue that people objecting to psychogenic explanations for ME are doing so out of contempt for mental illness and its sufferers - though that is a myth that gets repeated over and over again.

One thing I think also needs to be remembered is that, no matter what I, or Professor Wessely, the ME community or other doctors think, the WHO classify ME as a neurological illness, and the British government abides by this classification.

1. Q: Do you condemn - unreservedly - those small number of people who appear to have issued threats, however vague, against people like Simon Wessely?

A: I must ask you quote this exactly: "As an academic myself I unreservedly condemn any actual harassment and abuse of researchers. However, raising reasonable objections to something through legitimate means (such as FOI requests or official complaints) is not harassment or abuse. There are specific reasons I have complained about the PACE trial, and written to an employer, neither of which can be remotely considered as 'harassment'."

The other issue you need to consider though - and this is vital - is that hate speech is being waged against a disabled patient group, especially though not exclusively with regard to the claims of 'harassment', that are specifically unsafe i.e. falsely accusing people - who are following legitimate procedures - of harassment, intimidation, and abuse, which is what is being done, when you look carefully at the various claims being made about the community.

ME sufferers are being characterised as 'extremists', 'fanatics', as well as 'malingerers' and 'hypochondriacs'. Their concerns are misrepresented as contempt for mental illness sufferers. They are mocked and told that they cannot be that ill in the first place if they have the energy to comment, an common insult. The historical insult 'Yuppie flu' is repeated as nauseum. Doctors have been involved in inciting this contempt for sufferers, and I discuss this phenomenon in my book.


2. Q: You are quoted as saying that you believe these threats are a storm in a teacup, that Wessely et al are over-reacting. Is this the case?

A: I would be grateful if you could give me the exact place such a 'quote' was made (and by whom), because I have never said this. This is not how I actually speak or write, and it is certainly NOT how I see the situation.

3. Q: I have spoken to Simon Wessely and he seems a decent, humane man. Do you accept that he is decent and humane, even if you disagree with his methods and point of view regarding this disease?

A: It is impossible for me to make an assessment of the character of someone whom I have never met. It's like asking me to say if Robert Pattinson is a 'decent, humane' man. In any case, as both a supporter of the ME community and, importantly, an academic myself, my concern is really not with anyone's 'character', but with highlighting specific problems with claims, and actions, within the fields of science and medicine that might be harming patients.

4. Q: How did you react to the recent news that XMRV is probably not the causal agent of ME? Did you previously believe it was? If not XMRV, then what do you believe causes ME?

A: The vast majority of patients and their supporters are not, and were never, pushing for a 'favorite pathogen'. From my experience, most of us were - still are - merely hoping for science to progress, correctly and ethically, in testing for a possible causative agent. There are, however, reasons to believe there were, and remain, problems with how 'the science' was conducted, following publication of the Lombardi paper.

5. Q: Have you ever met your opponents and debated with them? Do you believe it is possible to have a mature and reasoned debate over a matter of what amounts to a major scientific and medical disagreement?

A: I did try and explain concerns about the PACE trial to Peter White, one of its authors, in a public meeting actually about the trial, but sadly he was not interested in discussing them. It SHOULD be possible to have mature and reasonable debates over this matter, but that is impossible when one 'side', from a position of power (that is proponents of psychogenic explanations for ME), accuses other participants (like patients and their supporters) of harassment, intimidation, and abuse - just because they have raised legitimate objections or concerns through legitimate channels - and misrepresents those concerns, which is sadly what has been happening.

Best wishes
Angela


----- Original Message -----
From: Hanlon, Michael
To: ANGELA KENNEDY
Sent: Thursday, December 06, 2012 1:18 PM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Angela

Thank you for taking the time to answer my questions.

Would you be prepared to meet with me sometime before Christmas? Happy to buy you lunch on the Sunday Times!

Best regards
Mike

----- Original Message -----
From: ANGELA KENNEDY
To: Hanlon, Michael
Sent: Friday, December 07, 2012 7:39 AM
Subject: Re: ME, XMRV, the PACE trials and Simon Wessely

Dear Mike,
Thank you, that's very kind of you Unfortunately I'm just not in a position to do that at the moment - certainly not before Christmas, and to be honest after Christmas feels unlikely, for a variety of reasons around caring for my daughter - and to be honest I've not been too well myself anyway (ongoing anaemia of unknown cause).

But anything else you need to ask me I am happy to answer by email.

There is one thing I forgot to mention in my previous email, regarding insults against ME patients that are repeated over and over again by journalists and academics (and Roger Highfield has just used this insult himself in a tweet!), and that is the irrelevant and laboured association, onto the obvious but entirely coincidental similarity, in the English language, between the acronym for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, and the first person objective, in order to characterise ME patients’ characters in dysphoric terms. This manifests in phrases like "the Me Me Me lobby" (Highfield's tweet), or in Elaine Showalter's case, this comment in her book Hystories, that the acronym “reflects the patient’s self absorption” . This is being done without irony. It's become, I'd say, an institutionalised, highly prejudicial insult against a disabled group. I discuss the characterisation of ME sufferers (and those of other illnesses deemed psychogenic) in dysphoric terms in detail in my book.

Best wishes
Angela

END OF CORRESPONDENCE

 

[Min]

The charity Invest in ME have posted this on their facebook page:

We have been in touch with some people in the background on this already and are aware of the likely tone any eventual article will set...
...The situation regarding ME does not require sound-bite healthcare or simplistic and poorly researched journalism - it needs mature and responsible journalism without any orchestrated efforts to portray the same old myths. The registration page is open for the conference. The charity will not be wasting the scarce resources we have on journalists who do not question, or probe to find the real truth.

 

[Esther12]

The anti-psychiatry patients vs kind reasonable academics is just too appealing a narrative for the British media.

Any bet on whether Hanlon will go for the usual thoughtless drivel?: 'what's really sad is that whether CFS is best understood in psychiatric or physical terms should not really matter - and this is perhaps a distinction without any real meaning anyway. Whatever the cause of these poor patient's problems, we should be grateful to those researchers who have devoted themselves so successfully to helping them.'

So sophisticated and humane.

 

[akrasia]

3. Q: I have spoken to Simon Wessely and he seems a decent, humane man. Do you accept that he is decent and humane, even if you disagree with his methods and point of view regarding this disease?


Well, after CBT, here's what I think:

Simon Wesseley is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

 

[Valentijn]

Well, after CBT, here's what I think:

Simon Wesseley is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

So that's what I missed out by getting kicked out by my CBT therapist early ... we didn't get to the point where I'm taught to love Sir Simon!

 

[Xandoff]

Simon Wesseley may be a kind, brave, warm and most wonderful human being. I am open to saying this. His life work of making ME CFS CFIDS a mental pychogenic illness has probably fattened his wallet. Many kind, well intentioned people can be wrong. Many kind intelligent people can do things that are not for the highest good. Kind, brave sure. Wrong.....YES!

Someday he will be proven wrong, until then he is free to collect all the money he can riding the horse he believes in.

 

[taniaaust1]

So that's what I missed out by getting kicked out by my CBT therapist early ... we didn't get to the point where I'm taught to love Sir Simon!

LOL.. Ive heard that some actually get kicked out of CBT. I never had that event. So I uselessly did it as part of DBT for years. All those appointments did was make me more tired and malaised.

 

[Research 1st]

Was it particularly sensible for Dr Shepherd to engage with this person who thinks that ME is a psychological illness?

Potentially this could backfire and be reduced to a propaganda exercise for people who seem to despise ME patients that could further denigrate them and make them feel more desperate but help people who deny organic ME in order to reduce the very valid criticism of the much hyped CFS Pace trial that has come under scrutiny.
The NICE guidelines for CFS/ME are up for review. Guidelines that can make a big difference if a non psychiatric view was adopted. By promoting the fallacy people with ME CFS are mentally ill, naturally a reduction on the organic side is reduced. Who would that benefit running up to the NICE guidelines review?

It is unlikely you will see mention of deaths from very severe CFS/ME that happen in many countries because then pseudoscience is exposed for being just that, and these articles then look very suspicious indeed if this happens.
Will an honest explanation of why patients cannot be blood donors either be explained?

Regurgitating old stories is getting very boring and bordering on unethical as the press abides by a rule that says that there must be a factual base to a story and story cannot be repeated if by doing this people being described could face the risk of discrimination or violence from other people because of what other people read and act upon as accurate information. (This is mainly done to stop vigilante groups or other sudden urges of revenge).

Certainly if this article is going to be a ME CFS patients are mean bad loonies style broadcast then yes, people face harm from repeating the story over and over again because someone wants this to happen to their benefit.

This has happened in history before, but to people without ME CFS, other people.

 

[Creekee]

Wow! My hat is off to Angela Kennedy. I know I could not have been so polite had I been responding to Michael Hanlon's biased and poorly-informed questions. I am truly offended by this self-proclaimed "science journalist."

Angela, you are amazing. We are in your debt, for sure.

 

[barbc56]

Angela Kennedy does not represent me and as far as I am concerned and does more harm than good for advocacy for people with me/cfs. I do like Dr. Shepherd and don't see what is wrong with his statement.
Barb

 

[Research 1st]

Yes indeed, Angela Kennedy doesn't represent you, but did she say she does? She represents herself in her own realm. As all people do.

I have met many good psychiatrists who are vastly learned and I'm quite certain Sir Simon doesn't represent them as his views are polar opposite of what I have heard from people working in the field of neuroscience who do not think along the lines of the chronic fatigue psych lobby at all. They do not agree that CFS is an erroneous belief system and not a genuine devastating neuro immune based disorder. No, they believe CFS is an organic dysfunction of the brain not a psychological problem that has any treatment options at the moment and certainly not CBT and increasing activity to reduce symptoms!

The statement of alleged illegal actions of people who are claimed to be 'patients' are based on no evidence, only rumour and by people who say ME doesn't exist. That last fact is somewhat telling. These aren't allegations made by physiotherapists or stomach specialists in catalogued random stories, but people who deny people's suffering is genuine in a repeated story. Because of that, naturally, people will be outraged and react. Human nature. Some might go too far, again human nature. It doesn't excuse anything but if people are antagonised they will react, all animals behave like this. We are animals after all.

Anyone can send an email, this does not identify them as having genuine ME CFS. Agent provocateurs exist also.

Printing no factual evidence when making serious repeated allegations in the press is not permitted when it is based on an allegation about any member of society that involves breaches of law or code of conducts that may make other people develop views that may be harmful to them physically or psychologically. This was done by default when instead of the psych lobby stating names and facts, they stated an acronym as the alleged offender, CFS. This is not permitted, for obvious reasons because it drags everyone with CFS into the accusation.

As ME CFS is a potentially life threatening condition, recently confirmed by the FDA, to suggest that someone with a potentially life threatening condition is mentally ill and is not suffering from an organic disease, well this will ofcourse produce a wave of further preventable mental health suffering in people with ME who find this deeply offensive.
As it would if people were proposing that MS was not an organic disease too. Anyone in the UK can report press articles of having offensive content it is part of living in a country that now has quite strict press laws and less press freedoms.

Press regulations are in place. The allegations are not about people they are about a group of people whose identity it is that others assign to, an identity. This could be a disease, or it could be a sexual preference, or maybe a religion. A belief. Yes, beliefs are protected too as religions are beliefs, a way of life.

You are obviously not aware this kind of thing is outlawed in UK law to spread hatred on the basis of unproven allegations.
The UK is very certain on what the media can and cannot report (factual or otherwise) about minority groups including people with disabilities, ironically, people with mental disabilties also.

Engaging in a story, that ME CFS patients or indeed anyone else who is a minority is a person who may pose harm to other (because of a label that you share that makes you this part of society), is therefore technically potentially illegal. Thus IF Dr Shepherd is aiding these people, is not sensible or helpful because naturally there will be more people with CFS mentally harmed (suffering stress and intimidation from the newspapers words), if the content is as bad as what had been printed in the past.

I cannot count the amount of times this story has been repeated in the UK press exactly but many times it has appeared simply rewritten. Pursuit of a people, identity or ideology is not permitted under the press's code of behaviours because it is then tantamount to harassment and all sorts of problems can result from this.

None of this has anything to do with the real problem that is afflicting 250,000+ people in the UK today, ME/CFS.

ME/CFS sufferers with the most severest forms of the condition are dying because of neglect, and this neglect is caused by an institutional error of not believing the patients are genuinely suffering from a disease process.

That is what needs to be reported in the press!

 

[Valentijn]

LOL.. Ive heard that some actually get kicked out of CBT. I never had that event.

I think it helps if, after realizing your therapist is a lying CBT psychogenic scumbag, you read up on the tactics they use and find novel ways to annoy the therapist. My fiance and I had been considering purchasing a mobility scooter, for example, and after reading in the Dutch CBT manual that mobility aids should not be used, we started talking about getting a mobility scooter frequently with the therapist, as a method to follow her otherwise impossible advice to "get out more".

And after getting the scooter, we'd talk about how great it was in therapy, as often as possible. Insisting on talking about the emotional impact of your illness and limitations might help too. For some reason, the CBT psychologist was never interested in that They're also strongly anti-internet-self-help and anti-seeing-specialists, so finding a way to tie those with in the psychologists' encouragement to socialize or get out more is probably a great way to annoy them as well.

So in my case, it was the result of a deliberate campaign of CBT practitioner annoyance, preplanned and coordinated with my fiance. The most important aspect is to loudly give them credit for doing the things that you know they don't want you to be doing.

 

[Enid]

LOL - love Simon, White, Chalder et al - slogging on in their total ignorance.

May they get ME. Careers, publications their aim - regardless of the well documentated biological pathologies in ME - they remind me of the Stafford NHS findings now exposed as totally lacking in patient listening. May this lot be part of the overhaul too.

 

[Firestormm]

The NICE guidelines for CFS/ME are up for review. Guidelines that can make a big difference if a non psychiatric view was adopted. By promoting the fallacy people with ME CFS are mentally ill, naturally a reduction on the organic side is reduced. Who would that benefit running up to the NICE guidelines review?

I'm afraid the review isn't going to happen. At least not as was intended. They are revising the system by which Reviews occur. We are awaiting news of how in future 'stakeholders' can raise issues with NICE and how new science/medical advances can be brought to the panel's attention. This was announced err... a month ago I think. There's a thread on the forum about it all somewhere...

 

[Firestormm]

Dr Shepherd MEA Facebook:

"This is a feature for the ST magazine by Michael Hanlon. I get the impression that it is going to be quite a long piece - so it may not be ready for this coming Sunday. I assume it will bring in the PACE trial debate."

I wonder if it will include reference to the debate in the Lords yesterday. Some good points raised that might counter and present a fairer view of where we are in terms of understanding. I need to read through the transcript tomorrow and hook out the ones I mean.

 

[SilverbladeTE]

3. Q: I have spoken to Simon Wessely and he seems a decent, humane man. Do you accept that he is decent and humane, even if you disagree with his methods and point of view regarding this disease?


Well, after CBT, here's what I think:

Simon Wesseley is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

CBT
Clockwork Bloody Tosh?