• 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.

BBC interview with Ron Davis

Jo Best

Senior Member
Messages
1,032
"Ron told him that the protocols in England are totally barbaric! He told him that England is the laughing stock of the entire world scientific community..."
reminds me of another thread on Advocacy in the UK:

"sarah darwins said:
the UK is sinking into a babbling backwater while places like Stanford and Columbia are driving forward
I just don't know how to make a good tune out of that"

The UK's sinking, Kumbaya
Into a babbling backwater
While Stanford and Columbia
Are driving forward, Kumbaya
Just to clarify that Ron Davis was referring to the PACE trial. The translational biomedical research programme of the Invest in ME Research Centre of Excellence for ME is world-class. I say this because of the context of the interview taking place at the charity's international Biomedical Research into ME Colloquium.
 
Last edited:

joshualevy

Senior Member
Messages
158
99% of people in every county in the world simply lap up the news relating to wars, financial crashes, historical events, terror attacks, the causes, who is at fault, who caused what etc uncritically.

Well, in the US, I think the opposite is happening. At least in the realm of politics, people are choosing their news sources based on the news source reporting stuff that the person thinks is true. (Not deciding what is true based on what the news service reports.) I think we're starting to see that creep into science/medicine coverage as well. Politics is leading the way in this regard, and infecting science news via the more political scientific research, but it's spreading into the rest of science/medicine news coverage.
 
Messages
88
At the weekend I summarised the background & e-mailed Ron's experience of the interview to my friend who's a BBC Radio producer. I said I think the important thing is that the radio programme is clear that the PACE trial's conclusions have been discredited, as have its recommendations. Therefore, clearly the findings of PACE should not be used to justify anything at all - let alone threats to remove children with ME/cfs from their parents.

I also said I'm shocked and embarrassed at BBC Radio's treatment of a hugely eminent scientist from another country, telling him he was to be interviewed about one thing, then focussing on another and interrupting him, stopping him from saying what he wanted to say about what he had been told would be the subject of the interview. I hope the radio programme will present current science, not discredited thinking. If it's going to explain the horrors that have resulted from the discredited PACE trial then that could be groundbreaking in the UK and the way the interview was handled may possibly have been justified, to generate the horrified responses it did. It would be very shocking if, having treated Ron and the other interviewees the way he has described, the programme plans to do anything else.
 

Jo Best

Senior Member
Messages
1,032
The post on the ME Association Facebook page is factually incorrect and somewhat misleading.

The interview that @Janet Dafoe (Rose49) posted about took place on Day 2 of the Biomedical Research into ME Colloquium on 1st June, not conference day 2nd June, as stated in the MEA FB post.

The selected quotes in the MEA FB post also give the impression that Charles Shepherd was somehow involved with the arrangement of these interviews. This was not the case and he was not at the colloquium.

I was not involved either, but I've been following the progress of Invest in ME Research online since I first found out about them in 2010, so I'll repost here what I've seen of their replies to questions about this for ease of reference.
 

Jo Best

Senior Member
Messages
1,032
From Invest in ME Research Facebook site:
Nancy Blake
4 June at 13:16
The BBC interviewed Ron Davis at the Invest in ME Conference. Did they broadcast this interview.....when, where?

I ask because the Science Media Centre, supposedly the approved source for passing scientific information to the media, never reports on the Invest in ME conference. Wessely is involved in their management.

I'll be pleasantly surprised if anything about the Conference, including this interview, has got past their censorship.

Consulting the Science Media Centre web page, you will find reports of what Crawley is doing and saying, and not very much else.

Please post information about any mainstream British media reports on the IiME Conference/the Ron Davis interview.
From replies by Invest in ME Research:
The European ME Alliance (EMEA) was contacted by a BBC reporter wishing to have the email address of an American paediatric doctor.

As the EMEA UK member, Invest in ME Research, had had that doctor to one of its conferences then the EMEA admin passed on the request to IiMER.

Now, IiMER is never one to let go of an opportunity.

Therefore, in addition to passing on the requested email address, we also notified the reporter of the research Colloquium and the Conference occurring in London in that week – something he knew nothing about.

IiMER enquired what the programme would be concentrating on.
We were told it was concerning youngsters and parents who had been in trouble with social services with refusing “recommended” treatments such as CBT and GET and the recent occurrences of this.

We stated this was not recent – such outrages have been occurring for a long, long time.

We stated we had researchers present at the Colloquium who would be able to provide correct information about any aspect of ME and that perhaps the reporter should visit us at the Conference.

We inquired further and the subject of PACE came up.
We left the reporter in no doubt of our views on that flawed research.

As we were holding a pre-conference dinner with keynote speaker David Tuller, we suggested it might be a useful use of the reporter’s time to come to the dinner, at our expense and as our guest, in order to speak to David.
This was declined (due to the reporter’s schedule pressures, we have to emphasise).
We did invite the reporter to our conference as well.
The reporter also then asked if IiMER could provide researchers (who would concentrate on science) for an interview that afternoon at the Colloquium.
We stated that we had the best researchers in the world attending, and what was it the reporter wanted to ask?

We were asked if Dr Esther Crawley was attending the Colloquium.
We gave a forthright reply to this question – leaving the reporter in no doubt that that was not the case.

So we were asked if we could provide researchers for some background information and maybe an interview but with knowledge of the science.

We agreed.
Whilst the reporter journeyed to the Colloquium venue IiMER hastily tried to find time within the Colloquium schedule to facilitate this.
Luckily lunch was imminent at the reporter’s planned arrival time at the venue.

IiMER asked Professor Ron Davis, Dr Kristian Sommerfelt (a paediatrician from Norway who was attending the Colloquium with Norwegian colleagues from Haukeland University Hospital in Bergen) to participate in the interview. They accepted.
We also asked Dr Amolak Bansal if he could participate. Dr Bansal runs an ME clinic in the NHS, has been involved in the research funded by IiMER and provided cohorts of patients to the research teams funded by IiMER.
We felt this provided a good overall mix of experience covering not just the range of disciplines but also an international context. IiMER believe that ME is an international problem and the knowledge of these scientists/clinicians could not be doubted.
These Colloquium delegates would provide robust and honest science to any questions posed by the reporter.

We also felt it was important that the BBC reporter had a true patient/carer view of ME so they could really understand what parents were having to go through to protect their children as well as trying to get them better.
Therefore, we asked Kjersti Krisner from Norway to be involved. Kjersti was our guest speaker at the IIMEC11 pre-conference dinner and has three extremely severely affected children with ME.
The reporter arrived – accepted our offer of lunch – and proceeded to discuss briefly with IiMER’s chosen discussion partners.

Here is where one can decide whether the line of questioning from the BBC reporter is valid – whether it is designed to provoke a response which would illustrate to the reporter whether there is more research needed into this or whether there is something else that the reporter can determine from the answer.

Our initial view was that a pre-determined foundation for the planned 45 minute programme had already been laid and that these additional (unplanned) interviews were just to add some side information.

After discussing with David Tuller and Nigel Speight later – both of whom were interviewed by the reporter the next day, thanks to IiMER’s invitation to the reporter to attend - then we will happily delay judgement until the programme airs.

The reporter then performed official interviews in a quiet area organised by IiMER.
The questions were initially deemed somewhat perverse as it must be already quite apparent to any reporter who has performed adequate research
- that PACE is an example of how not to do research
- that families with children with ME are often victimised by the ignorance of NHS and social services about ME
- that research into ME has been hampered by establishment organisations that fail to fund proper research or to abide by the WHO classification as a neurological illness or of the IOM report which finds ME is a chronic disease.

IiMER created these interviews out of nothing, a tiny glimpse of an opportunity.
That the reporter did not know about the IiMER conferences, did not know we had the researchers whom we did have at the Colloquium, and had seemingly not heard of any of them – does not bode well. But we shall see.
Certainly there is no excuse to get this wrong now.

We hope our actions might have at least provided the reporter with need to rethink his planned programme.

IiMER are prepared to assist if required.

As mentioned previously the reporter did meet David Tuller and Nigel Speight later the next day when he attended the conference to perform interviews.

No other individuals were involved in this.


As we wrote we created this opportunity out of nothing, without any support and no prior knowledge of the programme, or much knowledge about the reporter or his brief.
Therefore, it is difficult to know what background research or prior programme development had been performed.
If the reporter did not know about IiMER or our research or our conference/colloquium (which seemed to be the case) then we have some concern as to what may be produced.
From the questions posed our immediate gut feeling was that he had already formed the foundation of the programme from talking to others who did not have the best interests of people with ME at heart.

But we are also prepared to state that we should await the programme being scheduled.

We only hope that the esteemed scientists presented to him would have been enough to persuade him to make his research better and more thorough in future.
What we do not need is yet another programme which totally misses the opportunity to provide an accurate appraisal as to why social services treat parents of children with ME negligently, why the MRC and its group of supporting organisations have failed people with ME with their policies toward research over the years, and what we really need to do to change this situation.

It should be quite simple now for any decent reporter to get it right.

But, of course, the real hurdle may well be the one set up by the editors in the BBC - who have seemed to us to be heavily influenced by the "wrong stuff" in the past.
4 June 2017
The IiMER conference organiser was contacted by the journalist yesterday and it was stated that there was no bias in the questions asked - and there was surprise that elsewhere on the internet there were negative comments.

We are happy to hear this and await the program - as we stated above.

At least now the journalist does know about IiMER and our supporters and what we are trying to achieve and the work we do, which was not the case prior to this.

Now someone in the BBC, who is making programmes about ME, does know about the Colloquiums and Conferences that IiMER arrange, does know that there is a drug used in cancer which is being trialled in Norway and UK, has heard about the UK Centre of Excellence for ME and now does know of leading researchers at the Quadram Institute Biosciences, those in the EMERG group of European countries, those in USA at Nova Southeastern and Stanford and Cornell and Columbia and in Australia at NCNED.

More importantly he has spoken to some of the researchers and someone at IiMER. And the journalist has the contact details and can therefore go directly to these researchers, rather than rely on the usual cmrc and SMC contacts.
Always good to cut out the middleman.
As we wrote there is no excuse to get this wrong.
5 June 2017
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
BBC PROGRAMME UPDATE (Wednesday 7th June)

Having just spent nearly two hours with the BBC this morning I hope I can once again reassure people that this is going to be a constructive, helpful and quite long BBC radio programme that will be covering (in particular) issues relating to the management of children and adolescents with ME/CFS, controversies surrounding the PACE trial, and the re-analysis by Wilshire et al of the PACE trial data on recovery

During the very wide ranging interview and briefing that I did this morning with the BBC we covered:

- The history of ME/CFS - in particular the Royal Free Outbreak in 1955, The Lancet coverage in 1956, and publication of the 1970 BMJ papers on mass hysteria

- Other historical outbreaks and clusters and the comparison with endemic ME/CFS

- Nomenclature: ME and CFS, including how the split in nomenclature came about in the 1980s

- What is ME/CFS

- Severe ME/CFS

- Children and adolescents: use of GET, problems with education and schools; child protection cases; meetings with the Chief Social Worker for Children and Adolescents (Mrs Isabelle Trowler) at House of Lords to discuss child protection cases

- PACE trial: history; flaws in patient selection, discredited Oxford Criteria, study design and outcome assessment; FoI requests; FoI tribunal; re-analysis of recovery data, MEA petition opposing the PACE trial

- What is CBT, GET and Pacing and what happens in practice in the NHS referral centres/services

- Patient evidence from the MEA reports on acceptability, safety and efficacy of CBT, GET and Pacing

- NICE guideline on ME/CFS - why it recommends CBT and GET and why the 2007 guideline needs revising

- DWP benefit problems and DWP funding for the PACE trial

And as previously noted, this is not a programme about current research into the underlying cause of ME/CFS

Dr Charles Shepherd
Hon Medical Adviser, MEA
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
Thank you so much @charles shepherd for doing this. Do you have any idea when and on what station it may be broadcast?

This programme will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4

There is still quite a lot of work to be done - so no date is as yet available.

But I suspect from previous work with the BBC that it will appear within the next few weeks, rather than the next few months..

As soon as we know a date and time there will be an announcement on the MEA website

CS
 
Messages
60
And as previously noted, this is not a programme about current research into the underlying cause ofME/CFS

Thanks for the information, and for the work you have done on this, Charles.

I hope the journalists in question will have been briefed about current biomedical ME research, as it is important evidence which undermines the whole premise on which CBT, GET, PACE and the NICE guidelines are based. To have a discussion about these issues without mentioning the scientific research which provides evidence that ME/CFS is a physical disease (or group of diseases) would be an extraordinary oversight.
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
Thanks for the information, and for the work you have done on this, Charles.

I hope the journalists in question will have been briefed about current biomedical ME research, as it is important evidence which undermines the whole premise on which CBT, GET, PACE and the NICE guidelines are based. To have a discussion about these issues without mentioning the scientific research which provides evidence that ME/CFS is a physical disease (or group of diseases) would be an extraordinary oversight.

The BBC is aware of some of the new research findings (rituximab, metabolomics etc) but this is not part of the programme

There is a limit to what you can squeeze into 40 minutes!
 

BurnA

Senior Member
Messages
2,087
Sounds promising.



Maybe just as a convenient place to get some quotes from authority figures?
Authorities on what though?
They interviewed the scientists and we now know that the programme isn't about the latest research into ME.
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Authorities on what though?
They interviewed the scientists and we now know that the programme isn't about the latest research into ME.

You know what British people are like. Have the BBC introduce an opinion as from a world-renowned scientist and suddenly it becomes a fact, regardless of whether it's in their field or not!
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
@charles shepherd
I am just wondering if you know if they have also interviewed/intend to include Esther Crawley as they asked IiME if she was at the conference.

I don't think I should place the list of people who have been interviewed, or are likely to be interviewed, by the BBC in the public domain at this stage, especially when discussions are still taking place

What I can say is that a programme this, where there are clearly criticisms and differing opinions being expressed, cannot end up being accused of being biased.

So there will be a range of people taking part.
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
Do you mean this one?:
Support for PACE Trial petition surges to over 10,000 signatures | 12 November 2015
A petition that’s touching many a raw nerve about claims made in the PACE Trial that cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise are effective treatments for ME/CFS has gathered well over 10,000 signatures since it was published about a fortnight ago.

The petition – launched by the #MEAction advocacy group founded by Jennifer Brea"

No - this is the one that was initiated by MEAction back in 2015

The MEA petition was launched right at the start of the PACE trial

CS
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
From the dim and distant past: 2004

The ME Association was adamant that the PACE trial should be halted and on 22nd May 2004 posted the following on its website (which was printed in its magazine “ME Essential” in July 2004):

The MEA calls for an immediate stop to the PACE and FINE trials

“A number of criticisms concerning the overall value of the PACE trial and the way in which it is going to be carried out have been made by the ME/CFS community.

The ME Association believes that many of these criticisms are valid.

We believe that the money being allocated to the PACE trial is a scandalous way of prioritising the very limited research funding that the MRC have decided to make available for ME/CFS
, especially when no money whatsoever has so far been awarded for research into the underlying physical cause of the illness.

We therefore believe that work on this trial should be brought to an immediate close and that the money should be held in reserve for research that is likely to be of real benefit to people with ME/CFS
.

We share the concerns being expressed relating to informed consent, particularly in relation to patients who are selected to take part in graded exercise therapy.

The Chief Medical Officer’s Report (section 4.4.2.1) noted that 50% of ME/CFS patients reported that graded exercise therapy had made their condition worse, and we therefore believe that anyone volunteering to undertake graded exercise therapy must be made aware of these findings”.


In its magazine “ME Essential” (February 2005), the ME Association’s Medical Advisor wrote:

“Now some bad news.

The MRC made it clear that priority should be given to funding further behavioural interventions.

The ME Association believes that the MRC research strategy is seriously flawed and has called for money to be spent on looking at the underlying physical causes of ME/CFS”.

 
Last edited: