Professor & patients' paper on the solvable biological challenge of ME/CFS: reader-friendly version
Simon McGrath provides a patient-friendly version of a peer-reviewed paper which highlights some of the most promising biomedical research on ME/CFS ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

CAA is Listening

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by jspotila, Feb 11, 2010.

  1. valia

    valia Senior Member


    Marvellous, I didn’t know infectious diseases could be managed with excercise
  2. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    CCC and Feduka
  3. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    You dont have to lie to make oxford fit feduka that is not my point

    Oxford can meet feduka but patients do not have cfs as i illustrated above

    niavity in this game does not help the CAA are being niave

    The CAA do not need to trust anyones integrity merely point out that the patients diagnosed by ccc and oxford are different ,Spending some time critically evaluating studies before blindly quoting from them would also be useful. The conclusions from the delange study were ludicrous and any scientist with any knowledge in this area would see this in 5 minutes.

    In any event a pilot study with such small numbers is meaningless and using it as a source of evidence is to put it politely injudicious.

    If you look at the Sharpe paper you will see that medical conditions are an exclusion criterea there in black and white.

    Oxford would not get past first base with CCC and would not fit a lot of the Feduka either but it meets the criterea for clinical depression beautifully
  4. Gerwyn

    Gerwyn Guest

    you must have an abridged version look in the sharpe paper it is there in black and white I have posted the section above it is hard to miss.It says people with MEDICAL CONDITIONS

    ARE EXCLUDED neuroimmune endocrine conditions cause severe fatigue--If that is not clear enough i dont know what is They quote anaemia as an example there are dozens of medical conditions associated with varying degees of fatigue (which is called tiredness or weariness in the sharpe paper of 1991).This means dozens of medical conditions are excluded
    ergo the patients with the conditions in the WPI study would be excluded QED

    Patients with psychiatric conditions are not excluded

    other medical conditiond causing fatigue

    o Illness
    o Flu
    o Mononucleosis
    o Hepatitis
    o Viral infection
    o Chronic infection
    o Urinary tract infection
    o Lung infection
    o Abdominal infection (see Abdominal symptoms)
    o Tooth abscess
    o Rheumatoid arthritis
    o Endocarditis
    o Almost any infectious disease may cause fatigue
    * Other diseases that may cause fatigue include:
    o Anemia - see the types of anemia and causes of anemia
    o Post-viral syndrome
    o Addison's disease
    o Hypothyroidism
    o Hyperthyroidism
    o Diabetes

    o Hypoglycemia
    o Hypotension

    o Poor nutrition
    o Low magnesium level
    o Heart disease
    o Heart failure
    o Cancer
    o Bowel tumor
    o Lung cancer
    o Depression
    o Kidney disease
    o Impotence - men may blame "fatigue" for performance failure.
    o Myasthenia gravis - may cause chronic muscle weakness
    o Malnutrition
    o Uremia
    o Inflammatory disorders
    o Connective tissue diseases
    * Some possible causes of tiredness plus headache include:
    o Migraine
    o Normal tension
    o Premenstrual tension
    o Pituitary tumor
    o Brain tumor
    o CO poisoning
    o High blood pressure
    * Malignant disease
    * Tuberculosis
    * Brucellosis
    * Infective endoccarditis
    * Toxoplasmosis
    * Postviral fatigue syndrome
    * Viral infections
    * Myalgic encephalomyelitis
    * Tissue hypoxia
    * Severe pulmonary hypertension
    * Mitral regurgitation
    * Tricuspid regurgitation
    * Excess diuretic therapy
    * Connective tissue disease
    * Systemic lupus erythematosus
    * Polyarteritis nodosa
    * Polymyalgia rheumatica
    * Giant-cell arteritis
    * Polymyositis
    * ENDOCRINE disorders
    * Metabolic disorders
    * Renal failure
    * Liver failure
    * Diabetes mellitus
    * Chronic diarrhoes (see Chronic diarrhoea)
    * Ulcerative colitis
    * Crohn's disease
    * Chronic pain
    * Osteoarthritis
    * Paget's disease
    * Metastatic disease of bone
    * Multiple sclerosis
    * Motor neurone disease
    * Alcohol withdrawal
    * Myopathy
    * Chronic drug intoxication
    * Alcohol abuse
    * Drug withdrawal
    * Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome
    * Adrenocortical insufficiency
    * Chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome
    * Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
    * Hypercortisolism
    * Lyme disease
    * Valvular heart disease
    * Surgery
    * Pulmonary heart disease
    * Cyclothymic disorder
    * Infectious mononucleosis
    * Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease
    * Polycythemia vera
    * Toxic multinodular goiter
    I hope i,ve made my point!
  5. Dr. Yes

    Dr. Yes Shame on You

    Cort it may well clear up some confusion at this juncture if you would post the version of the Oxford criteria you are looking at, or at least a link to the same version. Or better yet, refer to the version Gerwyn is citing, as it is the original published version by Sharpe et al., available in pdf form here:
  6. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    Jennie is right.
  7. jspotila

    jspotila Senior Member

    Dr. Vernon never said the Dutch study was a replication study.

    I think we all agree on that.
    The Dutch study used the same primers as the WPI study, used a known XMRV-positive prostate cancer cell line to ensure the PCR testing could identify XMRV, used a similar amount of nucleic acid as the WPI study, and the study looked for two different XMRV genes.

    Dr. Vernon stated that the Dutch study used a completely different cohort criteria from WPI.

    Dr. Vernon did not defend the Oxford criteria as being better than WPI's criteria, nor did she endorse the Oxford criteria.
    Dr. Vernon pointed out the open questions about the WPI cohort, including the question of how many of the XMRV positive patients may have developed cancer. This question has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.

    The Association's position has not changed. "History has taught us the absolute importance of impeccable study design in looking for infectious agents as a possible cause of CFS. . . . There are going to be numerous technical, biologic and epidemiologic challenges associated with linking XMRV to CFS and other diseases including prostate cancer. Whether XMRV is in any way associated with CFS will be the subject of further investigation. But these investigations must be designed appropriately and impeccably. . . . The CFIDS Association of America is working diligently to foster the type of well-designed studies of CFS and XMRV that will provide definitive grounds for moving forward on this hypothesis so that history does not repeat itself."
  8. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    Oxford Criteria Studies are Invalid. End of Story.

    Dr. Vernon said the dutch study used a "well-characterized patient cohort that met accepted and widely used CFS case definition criteria." and defended Oxford criteria as being used more back when the samples were taken.

    Leaving aside the issue of old frozen samples, this defense of Oxford criteria, and therefor this study, is ludicrous.

    We all know Oxford is totally invalid; that it is a transparent attempt to repackage idiopathic chronic fatigue as "CFS" and thus muddy and retard the science and perception of ME patients.

    I don't understand why Cort and Jennie would waste their breath defending Oxford, any study done on it or anyone defending these studies.

    Dr. Vernon should have said "Oxford is invalid and any study using it is invalid. This is an old trick they use." PERIOD.

    CAA needs to be VERY CLEAR to readers about these basic tricks they use.
  9. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    I think that making a big thing over patient selection would have been a bad idea, given that this was the third negative study. Oxford criteria is a bit silly for an XMRV study, but something else must be going on for none of the three studies that have come since the Science paper to have backed up the WPI's results. If the CAA had been as blunt as you suggested, I think they would have made it easier for others to ignore them.

    I think the CAA have been pretty good with the whole XMRV thing. Pushing to have it taken seriously, but not putting all their (our) eggs in the one basket. It's possible the XMRV thing won't pan out, and we'll really need a credible support organisation if that's the case.
  10. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Syracuse, Utah, USA
    Actually it is the immune system that responds to moderate amounts of exercise, and also stress reduction measures. Probably for some people who just need a small immune boost, this can really help.

    See: Exercise and Immunity (from

    This is probably one of the reasons CBT and GET are able to help some people who are only marginally sick. Or those who just have depression, as exercise releases beta endorphins. And also, notice on that web page that overdoing exercise actually lowers immune response. So exercise to the level of ability and not beyond is critical.

    But obviously anyone who understands serious immune deficiency illness would never suggest exercise as an actual treatment. I was just pointing out that this attribute of exercise, combined with inadequate screening of the patient cohort, might be responsible for the seemingly positive response of some of some less sick fatigue patients in those GET studies.
  11. mezombie

    mezombie Senior Member

    East Coast city, USA
    My mistake -- I should have stopped short of adding "Reeves Disease". However, the CAA has had ample opportunity to affect the definition of "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome".

    Kim (then Kenney) McLeary is credited as a consultant in the 1994 "Fukuda Definition" article. The CAA also participated in several conferences during which the CDC was considering changes to the 1994 definition. The Reeves empirical definition did not spring into being overnight. The CAA could not possibly have been blind to what was happening with the redefinition--certainly I and others could see where things were headed.

    Why did it take so long to "disavow" the Reeves empirical definition?

    And why hasn't the CAA ever advocated for adoption of the Canadian ME/CFS Criteria? They were promulgated in 2003.

    I don't view the 1994 Fukuda criteria as defining much at all. As Gerwyn stated, anyone who fits the Oxford definition will fit that CDC definition.

    And that would be chronic fatigue. Period.
  12. kurt

    kurt Senior Member

    Syracuse, Utah, USA
    Nice list! It did not include mitochondria dysfunction, but really you made your point.

    However, who is going to test a patient to exclude all of that? One of our problems is that doctors don't have funds to test every CFS patient to exclude every possible condition, so they rely on clinical signs and symptoms. And that leads us to that enormous list because there are more diseases than symptoms. The body has a limited number of symptoms it can present, so symptoms overlap a lot.

    The big problem I see with 'who to include' in a CFS study is not really which selection criteria to use, because any of them will pick up some CFS patients, along with many other problems. Rather the problem is that NONE of the selection criteria uses a concrete biomarker. They are still shooting in the dark.

    I totally agree with this, and this discussion I think has become a little pointless, we are beating the proverbial dead horse (this is a live one, symbolic only...):


    Everyone here I think agrees that

    - some things are outdated and wrong in some of the CAA literature, and
    - everything is wrong with the use of CBT/GET in the UK as sole treatments for ME, and
    - something is wrong with CFS criterias used in studies, and
    - something is wrong with one or more of the current XMRV studies.

    One thought about the Oxford criteria, or any other really. Those are MINIMAL standards for diagnosis. So patients who meet Oxford may also be selected on stricter internal study criteria, but if all there is for CFS diagnosis at the time, or all that is accepted in the country of the study is Oxford, they have to say that. What I read in the Dutch study suggested that many of those patients probably would meet a stricter criteria. So just observing that a study has a weak criteria such as Oxford is not enough, you must also know exactly how those particular patients were selected, and what are their proven pathologies, whether they exceeded the criteria. And that is a problem right now in ALL of the XMRV studies, including WPI.
  13. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    It's more than 'a bit silly' to use Oxford criteria. MS is a fatiguing illness. What if a study by known charlatans published and promoted in the press a study of MS patients and the "MS patients" consisted entirely of tired people they found in a psychiatric clinic? If the study found no demyelination and pushed in the press that this was strong evidence there was no demyelination in MS patients, I would expect an MS patient org to say 'these were not MS patients, therefor this study is invalid; next!"

    I don't think people would ignore CAA if they said this because these Oxford studies are so transparently fraudulent. And if they did, it would be better to have the truth out there ignored, than to "collaborate" with the anti-scientific propaganda of the Wessely people.
  14. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    CAA must Lead, not follow, CDC

    I'm pretty sure all of the "CFS" patients in the Science study met both the canadian and Fukuda criteria. This is what CAA should be doing in its studies. They wouldn't be turned down for NIH grants later since they would also be using Fukuda. It is VERY important that WPI start using and promoting the canadian definition. As has been said many times: this sort of stuff is basic and if CAA doesn't start doing it, noone will; CAA needs to LEAD, not follow CDC.
  15. MEKoan

    MEKoan Senior Member

    This is the really odd thing. Why have so many people been shaking their heads in disbelief over so much for so many years? Why do so many of us come away with the feeling that the CAA is not supportive of XMRV research? Why do we believe they do support "treatments" and strategies which are not in our best interests?

    Why are so many of us feeling so much dissatisfaction about an organization which is charged with helping to shape the public face of this illness?

    If we have such a bad taste in our mouths, how can we have any confidence that the CAA can represent us in any kind of effective way? If they can't preach to the choir, who can they preach to?

    There's a problem and reflexively defending the CAA isn't going to fix it. The only thing that will fix it is the CAA representing the community effectively and transparently to a standard which satisfies its constituents. That's the bottom line and that's just not happening. IMO
  16. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    Dr. Vernon Should be on Talk Shows Exposing CDC.

    I want Dr. Vernon on talk shows exposing CDC. She was an insider. Her name is on the "Reeves Criteria." I know she is a scientist. In the name of science ("knowing the truth") she should be out there exposing CDC's anti-science campaign against us for the past 25 years. Give her a raise for this. It is vitally important for us as a patient community and human beings deserving freedom from the abuse propagated by CDC. Her silence is deafening.
  17. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
  18. justinreilly

    justinreilly Senior Member

    NYC (& RI)
    oooh. I just went from "member" to 'senior member' with that last post. i feel like such an inside club member!:D
  19. MEKoan

    MEKoan Senior Member

    Congratulations Justin, you deserve your senior status!

    What you said!
  20. starryeyes

    starryeyes Senior Member

    Bay Area, California
    Thank you Koan. That really sums it up. We are dissatisfied. The title of this thread is "The CAA is Listening"

    Who are they listening to? It doesn't seem like they're listening to the patients.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page