Julie Rehmeyer's 'Through the Shadowlands'
Writer Never Give Up talks about Julie Rehmeyer's new book "Through the Shadowlands: A Science Writer's Odyssey into an Illness Science Doesn't Understand" and shares an interview with Julie ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

MEGA research for M.E./CFS: White & Crawley listed as involved

Discussion in 'Petitions' started by AndyPR, Sep 28, 2016.

  1. Hutan

    Hutan Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,069
    Likes:
    6,431
    New Zealand
    It would be useful, I think, to have a list of UK ME patient charities together with the number of members of each. Is that information available?
     
    mango and TiredSam like this.
  2. Research 1st

    Research 1st Severe ME, POTS & MCAS.

    Messages:
    695
    Likes:
    2,294
    Nearly right. She's is a psychiatrist and a neuroimmunologist & epidemiologist. :thumbsup:
     
    TiredSam and Hutan like this.
  3. Robert 1973

    Robert 1973

    Messages:
    57
    Likes:
    645
    Thanks. I stand corrected. But my point remains valid – I hope!
     
  4. AndyH

    AndyH

    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    431
    People don't always practice what their qualification implies in. Esther Crawley is a typical example. She clearly doesn't belong in the biomedical world but the psychiatric. For years, her studies have been behavioural, non-biological and pubished in psychosomatic journals etc. In practice, she is not a biomedical researcher, so that's what defines her, not her once upon a time qualification. It's the biomedical/psychiatric practices in researchers that's clearly at issue, not necessarily their qualification.

    People are sick to the back teeth of psychiatric practices hindering biomedical progress or harming sufferers. Psychiatric practices have no part in any ME studies given the years the've had to prove their use, the lack of any possibility of any likely relief to people's suffering and given that there are now so many potentially fruitful biomedical avenues where answers could be found.

    Why is my question. Why the insistance on psychiatric based researchers, particularly one not trusted by clearly a vast number of ME sufferers. It seem Action for M.E. have avoided the question.

    This whole situation, including the funding Action for M.E. have been involved with for White and Crawley and their support for PACE does make one wonder whether the MEGA insistance for psychiatrists is perhaps due to friendships between them and/or that funding is being secured by one of them. It may be worth asking the questions because if there's nothing to hide, they should be able to give straight answers. It would clarify things for everyone. So far, everything is hidden and that's causing a lot of public concern and opinions which may or may not be correct but people rightly have concerns over the inclusion of researchers many simply do not trust.
     
    Jan, ukxmrv, Maggie21 and 7 others like this.
  5. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885

    @charles shepherd I appreciate you are very busy and may have missed this but I was wondering if you could respond to the question regarding the original petition? Thanks
     
    Wildcat likes this.
  6. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    Whether someone is a psychiatrist or not doesn't matter. Whether they're competent and trustworthy does.

    We've had to deal with a lot of rubbish psychiatrists, but complaining about a researcher's profession rather than their behaviour as an individual, is not a good look and will make people assume you're being unreasonable. In this case, the fact that so much of the concern is about Crawley, makes it clear that patients' concern is not just about people's backgrounds and training.
     
    Jan, Artstu, Valentijn and 11 others like this.
  7. AndyH

    AndyH

    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    431
    Esther12. Apologies if you took my comment that way. It's not a complaint about psychiatry but a complaint about how psychiatry has been applied to ME, which is a biological condition and so innappropriate unless there's a comorbid psychiatric condition. So for that reason, it is my firm view that psychiatry has no place in the research of ME. No offence to the profession as a whole was intended. Hopefully this clarifies my point.
     
    Jan, Artstu, Maggie21 and 5 others like this.
  8. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    No problem - sorry if it sounded like I was having a go. I was mainly posting in response to the Q& A, and then your post may have just fit in to my concerns.

    I don't think one can say that 'psychiatry' has no place in the research of ME. 'Psychiatry' can include a pretty wide range of things, some of which may be useful for researching ME. I really think it's best to focus on the problems with how some individual researchers have behaved, and push to raise standards that way, rather than argue that no-one from an entire field could make a worthwhile contribution.

    In practical terms, unless they had a history of speaking out about things like the PACE trial, I probably would be suspicious of someone coming to research ME from UK psychiatry... but I think it's worth playing down those broad concerns which can easily seem (and be) unreasonable.
     
    Jan, Mrs Sowester, Valentijn and 5 others like this.
  9. JES

    JES Senior Member

    Messages:
    466
    Likes:
    742
    I agree, we have to remember that a big contribution to CFS/ME research has come e.g. from Jay Goldstein, who was a psychiatrist and wrote the book Betrayal by the Brain. His theory about CFS/ME and disrupted blood flow or hypoperfusion in the brain and the treatment with various vasodilators was at least 30 years ahead of its time. Only very recently has interest in these things re-emerged with Fluge/Mella experimenting with nitric oxide donors etc. If there were people like Goldstein involved with the MEGA study, I don't think anyone here would object to this.
     
  10. AndyH

    AndyH

    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    431
    I understand the issue. I know they're not comparable by a long shot and that's the point but Mady Hornig and Esther Crawly are both qualified in epidemiology. I'd jump at the chance of having Mady invoved but very much oppose Crawley having any involvement. The difference is in how they treat medicine. Crawley pushes behavioral therapies like GET and CBT, whereas Mady works on underlying biomedical abnormalities. Both very different approaches.
    So how would you proposed to make such a distinction?
     
  11. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    Focussing on the specific reasons for concern with the individual researchers work. Patients raising concerns about researchers in this way is pretty unusual, and there are already a lot of prejudices about ME patients amongst the research community, so there's good reason for us to be cautious in the way we do things.
     
  12. thegodofpleasure

    thegodofpleasure Player in a Greek Tragedy

    Messages:
    202
    Likes:
    398
    Matlock, Derbyshire, Uk
    Exactly. That's why so many people were appalled that the MEA signed up to the CMRC, together with their quasi gagging order rules of membership.
    The MEA therefore lack the ability to properly represent their membership while ever they remain part of that tainted organisation.
    Every day that @charles shepherd fails to state the blindingly obvious and speak out robustly against this nonsense is another day lost and is a further erosion of his credibility as a patient representative.

    We aren't naive children who will be told what to think and do.

    If Dr Shepherd wonders why so many people who aren't members of his organisation are commenting on the MEA Facebook page, it's because most of them have graduated beyond M.E. kindergarten and now have the knowledge to see through the ineptitude, the politics and the lack of incisive action, and to therefore understand the science and what really needs to be done.
     
    Maggie21 and AndyH like this.
  13. AndyH

    AndyH

    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    431
    I don't see why, when there's clearly an issue, that one should not try and tackle that issue just because it's not the norm. Would you say the same for ME and GET?
    Why are people scared of telling it how it is and tackling it head on?
    As for
    , what prejudices and from where? If you refer to those by the researchers who are criticised by sufferers, then that's understandable. As for other researchers, I can see no reason why they would have prejudice.
     
    Maggie21 and TiredSam like this.
  14. Skippa

    Skippa Anti-BS

    Messages:
    841
    Likes:
    2,960
    The least MEA could do is hand out sticking plasters to sooth patient's heads from all the brick walls we have to bang them against.

    Here is why the psycho quacks are involved... it's quite simple really...

    They are co-authors of the largest public funded research into CFS/ME to date.

    As such, they are the foremost British experts in treating ME/CFS available, and their insights should prove invaluable yada yada.

    PACE lives on and is influencing policy as strongly as ever.

    End of.

    Ps, they also have the benefit of attracting funding like flies to horse dung.
     
  15. Ysabelle-S

    Ysabelle-S Highly Vexatious

    Messages:
    523
    Likes:
    4,041
    On the subject of psychiatry, there are psychiatrists who've seen ME patients and identified the illness as not being psychiatric. I seem to recall at least one switching to prescribing anti-virals for their patients, and getting some positive results. I've no doubt some of them could also identify the trauma ME sufferers have endured at the hands of other psychiatrists. But the BPS crowd are beyond the pale.
     
    Jan, Comet, Valentijn and 7 others like this.
  16. AndyH

    AndyH

    Messages:
    62
    Likes:
    431
    Which is one of the reasons I suspect certain contencious researchers are involved. I think judgements are being blinded by the money. I know A4ME have said they've yet to apply for funding but I am sure that's just a formality or they wouldn't have taken this public yet.
     
    Cornishbird, Maggie21, Skippa and 2 others like this.
  17. Skippa

    Skippa Anti-BS

    Messages:
    841
    Likes:
    2,960
    I myself had the fortune of seeing one on the NHS so hats off to her... sad the other four or five I saw just wanted to pump me full of increased doses of SSRIs.
     
    Jan, AndyH, Maggie21 and 2 others like this.
  18. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    In the UK research community people like Wessely, White and Crawley are trusted. Their smears of patients have spread, and it's been going on for a long time now.

    I'm not saying that we should not try to tackle this issue, or tell it like it is, but I am saying that there are good reasons for being particularly cautious in how we do so.
     
    Cornishbird, AndyH, ukxmrv and 2 others like this.
  19. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885
    Here are defenders of Sir Simon Wessely getting the Sense about Science award for bravery against the "harassment" by Countess of Mar, Prof Hooper and Dr Weir.

    Quick Quiz: How many of the BPS school and how many in the CMRC/MEGA team can you spot in this letter?

    I am so confident of this MEGA project and so glad that our ME charities are now looking after their patients interests with their close involvement in it.



    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-online-postings-2-december-2012-8373777.html


    Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME is a debilitating condition affecting some 1 per cent of the UK population (“ME: bitterest row yet in a long saga”, 25 November). We believe this serious illness needs improved treatments and care, and that research is central to making this happen.

    However, researchers in the field have been the target of a campaign to undermine their work and professional credibility. This harassment risks undermining research in the field, preventing the development of new treatments and discouraging specialist clinicians from entering the field. We fear that this may have resulted in patients not receiving the best treatments or care – staying ill for longer and not being able to live their life to its full potential.

    So it is with sadness that we read in The Independent on Sundayreports of false allegations made against Simon Wessely - one of the few UK clinicians with a specialist interest in treating CFS/ME and someone who has done pioneering research in the field. Ironically, it was because of accusations like this that Professor Wessely received the award in the first place.

    Professor Peter White, Professor of Psychological Medicine, Queen Mary University of London

    Professor Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychological Medicine, University of Oxford

    Dr Esther Crawley, Reader in Child Health, University of Bristol

    Professor Stephen Holgate CBE, MRC Clinical Professor of Immunopharmacology, University of Southampton

    Professor Rona Moss-Morris, Head of Health Psychology, King’s College London

    Dr Charlotte Feinmann, Reader , UCL

    Professor Hugo Critchley, Chair in Psychiatry, Brighton and Sussex Medical School

    Dr Brian Angus, Reader in Infectious Diseases, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of oxford

    Dr Steven Reid, Clinical Director for Psychological Medicine, Central and North West London NHS Foundation Trust

    Professor Patrick Doherty, Professor of Rehabilitation, York St John University

    Professor Paul Little, Professor of Primary Care Research, University of Southampton

    Dr Maurice Murphy, HIV Consultant, Barts Health NHS Trust

    Professor Tim Peto, Consultant in Infectious Diseases and General Medicine, Nuffield Department of Medicine, University of Oxford

    Professor Sir Mansel Aylward, Chair, Public Health Wales, Cardiff University

    Dr Alastair Miller, Consultant Physician, Royal Liverpool University Hospital

    Professor Diane Cox, Professor of Occupational Therapy, University of Cumbria

    Professor Jonathan Sterne, Professor of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, University of Bristol

    Dr Margaret May, Reader in Medical Statistics, University of Bristol

    Professor George Davey-Smith, Professor of Clinical Epidemiology, University of Bristol

    Dr Jade Thai, Senior Research Fellow, University of Bristol

    Dr Gabrielle Murphy, Clinical Lead Physician, Fatigue Service, Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust

    Dr Hazel O'Dowd, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and CFS/ME Team Leader, Frenchay Hospital Bristol

    Dr Brian Marien, Director, Positive Health

    Professor Willie Hamilton, Professor of Primary Care Diagnostics, University of Exeter

    Dr Selwyn Richards, Consultant Rheumatologist, Poole Hospital NHS Trust

    Professor Alison Wearden, Professor of Health Psychology, University of Manchester

    Professor Trudie Chalder, Department of Psychological Medicine, King’s College London.
     
    snowathlete, eafw, JohnCB and 5 others like this.
  20. TiredSam

    TiredSam The wise nematode hibernates

    Messages:
    2,677
    Likes:
    21,539
    Germany
    Heard that somewhere before. Only in the context of objections to the BPS brigade though, happily. Did I mention that somewhere today?

    Dr Zaher Nahle's No Spin Zone slides

    In answer to your question, I make it 5:

    Professor Peter White
    Dr Esther Crawley
    Professor Stephen Holgate
    Professor Paul Little
    Professor George Davey-Smith


    Funny how none of them got scared off in the following 4 years, even though they must have been aware of what they're up against militant patient-wise for all that time (Although maybe fear did finally get the better of Peter White and that's why he resigned?). It's obviously their less courageous colleages they're worried about.

    So who are the potential scaredy-cats? Of the people listed on the petition, if we remove those mentioned above because they are obviously battle-hardened and have a skin thick enough to ignore anything coming from patients (and I think we can remove Sonya Chowdhury for the same reason), we are left with:

    Prof Chris Ponting, University of Edinburgh;
    Prof Colin Smith, University of Brighton;
    Prof Caroline Relton, University of Bristol;
    Tony Bartlett, Somalogic;
    Dr Rick Dunn, University of Birmingham;
    Prof Julia Newton, University of Newcastle;
    Prof Andrew Morris, University of Edinburgh;
    Prof David Ford, SwanseaUniversity;
    Prof Paul Moss, University of Birmingham;
    Prof Jim Horne, LoughboroughUniversity;
    Prof Maria Fitzgerald, UniversityCollegeLondon;

    So which of these are we not allowed to mention the war to?

     
    Jan, Artstu, Hutan and 5 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page