And some more info on Professor Blakemore's dealings with ME in the past:
From Magical Medicine,
Professor Hooper, February 2010, p291
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/magical-medicine.pdf
Professor Colin Blakemore
Formerly Professorial Fellow at Magdalen College and Waynflete Professor of Physiology at the University of Oxford, between 2003 2007 Professor Blakemore served as Chief Executive of the MRC and is now Professor of Neuroscience at Oxford. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society and the Academy of Medical Sciences, amongst many other prestigious institutions, and has received numerous awards. Together with Simon Wessely, Blakemore works with and for the Science Media Centre and with its sibling organisation Sense about Science.
Soon after his appointment to the MRC, The Sunday Times published a leaked British Cabinet Office document that suggested Blakemore was deemed unsuitable for inclusion in the New Years Honours List because of his research on animals, whereupon he threatened to resign. He withdrew his intention after expressions of support for him from the Minister for Science, Lord (David) Sainsbury. As of 2007, Blakemore was the only MRC Chief Executive unrecognised by the British honours system. In 2003, a House of Commons Select Committee criticised Blakemore for his heavy handed lobbying of other members of the National Institute for Medical Research taskforce.
An interview with him on BBC Radio 5 Live broadcast on 22nd February 2005 encapsulated the essence of the iatrogenic problem that for over two decades has compounded the suffering of those affected by ME/CFS in the UK. If Professor Blakemores pronouncements had been about any other officially classified neurological disorder but the one in question, he would surely have been pilloried by the media and the public.
In the interview, Blakemore was asked why, after several years of promises, the Medical Research Council has so far failed to fund any biological research into the physiological issues surrounding ME/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome that is recognised by the World Health Organisation as being a disease of neurological origin? Thus far the MRC has been seen to do not a lot more than perpetuate the status quo of funding psychological interventions (that) do not address neurological, cardiological, immunological and other abnormalities highlighted in international research that so far has been ignored in the United Kingdom.
In response, Blakemore said: I think to concentrate on this question of whether ME is thought to be a neurological or a psychological condition actually isnt going to get us far --- I mean, compare the situation with depression: depression is a brain condition but depression can be treated both by psychological approaches and by drugs, so I dont think we should look down our noses at psychological treatments. We accept that this is a real disease (but) we dont understand its basis. We need high quality proposals I think everyone would agree that they wouldnt want taxpayers money wasted on bad science however important the cause (Co-Cure ACT: Transcript of Radio 5 Live 23rd February 2005).
In his justification of the MRCs position, Blakemore used the analogy of depression, but if he had used Parkinsons Disease or multiple sclerosis, the analogy does not work. Perhaps without realising it, Blakemore articulated that the MRC does not recognise ME as a proper neurological disorder.
Blakemores assertion that there is no need to worry about whether or not the disorder is either psychological or neurological would seem not to be in accordance with the rigorous approach that is necessary for progress to be made in medical science. Did he really see no need to search vigorously for the cause of ME? If so, why does such an approach relate only to ME and not to all illnesses whose cause is as yet unknown, including cancer, multiple sclerosis and lupus? What is the purpose of the MRC if not to conduct research into illness that will provide understanding of (and result in treatment for) a disease?
Certainly no-one wants taxpayers money wasted on bad science, yet that is exactly what many people believe is happening with the PACE Trial. In its magazine ME Essential (February 2005), the ME Associations 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.
The ME Association has been adamant that the PACE and FINE trials 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 Officers 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.
The ME Association additionally called for all further work on the FINE trial to be halted, saying the MEA is not convinced by the evidence so far put forward in support of this approach.
Blakemore, however, was unmoved. By letter dated 11th May 2005, he wrote to an independent ME researcher about the PACE and FINE Trials: I reiterate that the trials were peer reviewed and awarded funding on the basis of the excellence of the science."
. It's quite ridiculous he wants to make it look as if the ME/CFS community had a disproportionally strong and present lobby. Basically we don't have any, i don't know the exact situation in the UK, but i guess it's the same like everywhere else. 
