• 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.

Countess of Mar's Formal Complaint to the BBC

Daisymay

Senior Member
Messages
754

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
Yay for the Countess of Mar!

Specific aspects of the complaint
1.
Professor Esther Crawley is currently under investigation by the GMC for negligent management of a young person with the condition in which she alleges to be an expert, this management being exactly the same as that which is to be used in her FITNET study so strongly promoted by the BBC.

Had the BBC’s journalist done his homework, it would surely have tempered his overly enthusiastic support for Professor Crawley.

2.
Throughout the day, the BBC reporters did not place the issue in proper context: there was no mention of the discredited PACE trial of CBT/GET in adults: in 2011, itwas hailed by the Science Media Centre and hence the UK media as successful, but following a five-year quest to obtain the raw data for re-analysis by independent statisticians, when the Judge ordered the raw data to be released, it was found to be fraudulent and that instead of the claimed recovery figure of 22% after CBT and GET, the actual figures were only 7% for CBT and 4% for GET, meaning that there was a null result from the PACE trial.

3.
The reporting was inaccurate (66% of participants were said to be “cured”) because it grossly exaggerated and mis-represented the findings of a small Dutch study in young people upon which the FITNET trial relies as evidence of efficacy: whilst there was a significant difference in school attendance at six months in those who received internet CBT
versus those who received “usual care” (75% vs 16%), the ultimate findings of the Dutch study showed no difference between the groups at 2-year follow-up. The BBC reporter failed in his duty to mention the actual results of the Dutch study, which was that children who did not get any CBT did as well as those who did get CBT, nor did he mention that three of the four thresholds used in the Dutch trial for “recovery” were virtually the same as for the entry criteria into the trial, nor that two of the Principal Investigators of the PACE trial (Professors White and Chalder) commented that in the Dutch study, most children met the trial criteria for “recovery” when they entered the trial -- a comment not without irony,
as exactly the same situation occurred in their own PACE trial of CBT/GET in adults.

4.
Undue credence was given to the behavioural theory of ME/CFS even though that theory has long since been debunked throughout the international medical community.

5.
The interview with Professor Crawley at 8.15 am on the BBC Today programme was heavily biased towards her own views, with very little time given to the opposing views of Jane Colby, Executive Director of TYMES Trust (The Young ME Sufferers Trust, the longest established national UK service for children and young people with ME and their families and winner of the Queen’s Award for Voluntary Service), so the BBC clearly did not present a balanced view.

6.
There was a further lack of balance in that no medical expert who disagreed with Professor Crawley was interviewed –
even the Medical Advisor to the ME Association was not informed that this item was to be broadcast and was excluded
from participation.

7.
Based on the extensive biomedical evidence, the FITNET trial cannot offer hope or promise of recovery and to broadcast that it can is in breach of numerous medical codes of conduct and to mislead patients by promising a cure when there is no such certainty is in breach of the General Medical Council Regulations as set out in “Good Medical Practice” (2006):

“Providing and publishing information about your services – paragraphs 60-62

60. If you publish information about your medical services, you must make sure the information is factual and verifiable
61. You must not make unjustifiable claims about the quality or outcomes of your services in any information you provide to patients. It must not offer guarantees of cures”.

Although this is an issue for the GMC and not primarily for the BBC, nonetheless the BBC gave undue prominence to unproven interventions and incorrectly reported the trial as curative.

8.
Given the insistence of the psychosocial school that ME/CFS is a behavioural disorder, this FITNET trial is likely
to become another weapon to force children with ME/CFS to undergo interventions which can make them even more sick and its extensive roll-out throughout the NHS may be used as a vehicle for the forcible removal of children from their parents and home, a situation that is already rampant in the UK.

9.
The BBC coverage was so hyperbolic and it afforded the FITNET trial so much publicity that it was clearly organised as a counter-punch to the anti-PACE evidence which is now gaining world-wide attention.

10.
Many international medical scientists and clinicians with whom I am in contact who are involved with the biomedical pathology of ME/CFS (including not only those in the UK but those in Canada, the US, Scandinavia, Holland, Australia and New Zealand) are appalled at such unjustified and uncritical publicity afforded by the BBC to a study which is based upon speculation, not upon science.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
The BBC has shown a consistent bias against proper treatments for ME. When sharpe was promoting the long term follow up for PACE the today program interviewed him but didn't challenge him about the way he was spinning results. Also Dr Hammond who works at crawley's clinic interviewed her on radio bristol without challenging her.
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
Also Dr Hammond who works at crawley's clinic interviewed her on radio bristol without challenging her.

Yes, Radio Bristol has been pretty good for us but i was amazed they would carry an interview by a colleague (her boss, I think). That's advertising, not journalism.

On the plus side, great letter from the Countess. Beautifully concise and clear.
 

Deepwater

Senior Member
Messages
208
Many, many thanks - yet again - to the Countess of Mar.
One wonders how deep the rot goes in the UK establishment. If ignorance were all we had to deal with we would surely have got the message through by now.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Brilliant letter. So grateful to the Countess of Mar. If the BBC does not respond we will have to find a way of alerting the media.
Would it help if we all write letters too, or should we wait?

If this bit is not true its going to devalue her letter to the BBC.......

Professor Esther Crawley is currently under investigation by the GMC

Although she fully deserves to be under investigation, if there is an investigation currently running the case hasn't been heard and there is no current judgement.

Also the BBC will just give their usual standardised response claiming they have covered the issue from different angles before and "this is a story that covered the science behind ......as published in the Dutch paper". They will reply with some spiel claiming to quote her saying that "its not a one size fits all treatment" bla bla bla and that she said "its a biological illness".
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,467
Location
UK
If this bit is not true its going to devalue her letter to the BBC.......



Although she fully deserves to be under investigation, if there is an investigation currently running the case hasn't been heard and there is no current judgement.

Also the BBC will just give their usual standardised response claiming they have covered the issue from different angles before and "this is a story that covered the science behind ......as published in the Dutch paper". They will reply with some spiel claiming to quote her saying that "its not a one size fits all treatment" bla bla bla and that she said "its a biological illness".

It is true, but I think the latest case was due to be determined last week. I expect her influential friends will have ensured that she was exonerated,although I haven't heard the outcome as yet.
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Excellent letter. The Countess of Mar really does have a knack of getting a message across.

I think it really is the case that the SMC is a political component engineered to manipulate the media message to the UK public, because the political fallout from PACE etc, is probably scaring them a great deal.

Influencing our own media is probably very tricky therefore, but maybe non-UK media might be more inclined to expose the BBC?
 

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
Wow when was she reported who reported her and what is the complaint?
I imagine it is confidential. Rightly so, I think until and unless the complaint is upheld, as I think doctors should be protected from publicity about what may be false accusations. Though I admit to some curiosity in this case.
I may be wrong, since the Countess has made it public, though not the details, in this letter.
 

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
7.
Based on the extensive biomedical evidence, the FITNET trial cannot offer hope or promise of recovery and to broadcast that it can is in breach of numerous medical codes of conduct and to mislead patients by promising a cure when there is no such certainty is in breach of the General Medical Council Regulations as set out in “Good Medical Practice” (2006):

This bit in particular stood out for me as an actionable legal issue.
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Before the days of social media, this sort of scandal was much easier to bury and hide from the wider world. They still live in the past I think, and do not realise it is only a matter of time before the truth finally does win through.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Rightly so, I think until and unless the complaint is upheld, as I think doctors should be protected from publicity about what may be false accusations.

I agree.


Though I admit to some curiosity in this case.

Yup.

I may be wrong, since the Countess has made it public, though not the details, in this letter.

Yes, that's why unless the outcome is already known to some and it has been upheld, using a given complaint to shine a light on someones many dubious claims may not be the best tactic.

Hmm, one really wonders what the outcome of any hearing was now as if Crawley has been cleared surely Lady Mar would have thought better of using the issue of the "under investigation" issue in the letter to he BBC. But also when was the complaint because its seems to have been heard really quickly if its already resolved?

I suppose in the past when we have heard of ME docs being reported to the GMC it is themselves who come out and tell people as its usually a vindictive complaint. In Crawleys case she has kept this so quiet.