Behind the scenes: Setting up the UK CFS/ME Research Collaborative (UK CMRC) - Tymes Trust

[Snowdrop]

I feel like I'm going round in circles. I quoted clauses 3.1.3 and 3.2.3 myself in post #156 and pointed out that they were not gagging clauses. Agreeing not to harass someone is not being gagged. To be honest, you really shouldn't need to sign a declaration not to harass or abuse someone. It's common decency.

I promised you, you will find nothing in the Charter that prohibits members from commenting on or criticising research or conclusions. That is normal scientific discourse.

I think I remember reading here somewhere that someone from the BPS school considered a FOI request to be harassment.
From how I read the the quote (of the document Esther Crawley wants signed) it would certainly be relevant what they consider to be harassment. How you or I might interpret that document isn't the point. It's about loose wording and how one might apply it.
Which is to say, it can be applied in a way that would seem very much equivalent to a gag order.

I doubt very much (as you have clearly pointed out) that anyone signing the document would be so indecent as to harass their colleagues.
So it does beg the question why she found the document necessary.

 

[Wildcat]

.
Earlier in this thread somebody stated that the FOI Act is "quite clear" on the issue of "vexatious" FOI's ("Vexatious" being one of the reasons an FOI may be refused).

Actually the Act really isn't clear at all about what may and what may not be deemed "vexatious".
Just about anything could be deemed "vexatious", even the "irritation" of the recipient.


.But conflating writing an FOI with harassment (as the Science Media Centre, Dr Crawley, Prof Wessely, and others of the BPS school have done) is stretching definitions to breaking point.
.

 

[Min]

.
.But conflating writing an FOI with harassment (as the Science Media Centre, Dr Crawley, Prof Wessely, and others of the BPS school have done) is stretching definitions to breaking point.
.

Given their deliberate misinterpretation of the term 'harassment' as being any form of criticism,it is possible that the clause was put in to prevent other members from criticising GETSET, SMILE etc. Including any criticism of the results bring spun in the blatant way the PACE results have bern.

 

[seanpaul]

It as clear as day to me - and should be to anyone else - that the most likely reason for the Collaborative is the MRC responding to criticism from ME/CFS patients about funding going to the psych lobby. In response Holgate is given the role of setting up a so called 'independent' research group copying his earlier work in Lung Disease. Holgate works with Crawley (a key figure in the UK psych lobby) her acting as deputy chair and perhaps the key figure given Holgate has no research background in ME/CFS. Holgate then contacts Wessely and White to ask who should be approached to be in the group and asks them what the group should be called, and they move forward by also drafting a charter which basically blocks anyone who's ever been critical on the psych lobby.

Wessely, White and Crawley are well aware that this group may grow in importance and have the ability to decide funding. They are right in there are the heart of the group, not only running it but acting as board members (ofcourse Wessely takes a seat in the shadows pulling strings from a distance).

No matter how much they want to promote CBT and GET and other psycho babble, they are hardly going to ignore every single biomedical researcher and they cant totally ignore patient groups, thus some biomedical researchers are approached and charities are asked to join. This does little to bring about a new independent ME/CFS UK Research Group - its the same key figures Wessely, White, Crawley and Co. running a different show in new clothes.

Follow the money someone one told me - where does the money mostly go now? Crawley is getting even more funding. White is well funded for his work in this area. Imagine White and Crawley applying for funding or even recommending funding for their peers, new staff and junior staff, with their positions as leading figures in the UK ME/CFS Collaborative? Eh yes, funding will continue to flow. Ofcourse the odd biomedical study will be funded, and top notch researchers like Newton at Newcastle will get funding, but the Psycho-babble Train keeps on moving down the track, with the psych lobby at the heart of UK ME/CFS research funding.

I would like to see a completely independent body - where White and Crawley are given the same status as every other potential applicant, where Wessely doesnt call the shots and where everyone is free to participate.

 

[Min]

It as clear as day to me - and should be to anyone else - that the most likely reason for the Collaborative is the MRC responding to criticism from ME/CFS patients about funding going to the psych lobby. In response Holgate is given the role of setting up a so called 'independent' research group copying his earlier work in Lung Disease. Holgate works with Crawley (a key figure in the UK psych lobby) her acting as deputy chair and perhaps the key figure given Holgate has no research background in ME/CFS. Holgate then contacts Wessely and White to ask who should be approached to be in the group and asks them what the group should be called, and they move forward by also drafting a charter which basically blocks anyone who's ever been critical on the psych lobby.

Wessely, White and Crawley are well aware that this group may grow in importance and have the ability to decide funding. They are right in there are the heart of the group, not only running it but acting as board members (ofcourse Wessely takes a seat in the shadows pulling strings from a distance).

No matter how much they want to promote CBT and GET and other psycho babble, they are hardly going to ignore every single biomedical researcher and they cant totally ignore patient groups, thus some biomedical researchers are approached and charities are asked to join. This does little to bring about a new independent ME/CFS UK Research Group - its the same key figures Wessely, White, Crawley and Co. running a different show in new clothes.

Follow the money someone one told me - where does the money mostly go now? Crawley is getting even more funding. White is well funded for his work in this area. Imagine White and Crawley applying for funding or even recommending funding for their peers, new staff and junior staff, with their positions as leading figures in the UK ME/CFS Collaborative? Eh yes, funding will continue to flow. Ofcourse the odd biomedical study will be funded, and top notch researchers like Newton at Newcastle will get funding, but the Psycho-babble Train keeps on moving down the track, with the psych lobby at the heart of UK ME/CFS research funding.

I would like to see a completely independent body - where White and Crawley are given the same status as every other potential applicant, where Wessely doesnt call the shots and where everyone is free to participate.

That sums the whole thing up with remarkable precision.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

RE: post #207 (Suzy Chapman)

Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you so much for a very clear and on point post on the issue at hand.
I've been wanting to comment but am experiencing extreme brain drain.

Some of us seem to be discussing what can be apprehended at face value. IE. how the conference went. Was it good or bad and then weighing the SMC/Collaborative accordingly. To me this is not the issue. I am very glad for the positive research efforts and biomedical studies being done but it remains to be seen when a battle is won is that the end of the war? (sorry for the violent metaphor).

Thank you, Snowdrop, but if you did mean post #207, I should clarify that post is a copy of the statement issued by Invest in ME in 2013 and its content has not been compiled by me and the views expressed within it are the views of Invest in ME.

You are correct - the subject of this thread is not the two day Bristol conference, who presented at it or how the conference went.

I could not attend, myself, and I haven't had time yet to catch up on summaries of the presentations. As I've said before, I have expressed no opinions about the conference or its presenters - that is not the subject of this thread. If I want to discuss the conference then I'll do it in the dedicated thread.

It's unfortunate that one or two commenters seem to want to bury the subject of this thread and focus, instead, on a one-off event that is only part of the Collaborative's extensive remit and this is obscuring the topic under discussion, here.

Had I attended the conference and considered it was a "good conference" that would in no way diminish my concerns for other aspects of the Collaborative's operation and history. The scope of the Collaborative's objectives (and these are set out in its Charter) extend beyond the staging of this two day event in Bristol.

A "good" conference is to be welcomed. I understand that the SMC also held a press briefing.* [See edit] I've had dealings with the SMC in relation to press briefings for an event about British psychologists' concerns for DSM-5. When an SMC press briefing is held, often a dozen or more experts will be approached for sound bites for use in media articles. These are made available to journalists and media offices along with a press release and any additional briefing materials.

I've got some on my site in relation to a 2012 DSM-5 related event, if you want to see an example of what journalists are given (I was given permission to publish these by SMC):

http://dxrevisionwatch.com/2012/02/...nts-from-research-and-clinical-professionals/
Science Media Centre DSM-5 press briefing: Comments from research and clinical professionals


I hope the conference has been getting some good media coverage - though I could not find any on Google news, yesterday.

But a "good" conference and "good" media coverage will not diminish my standing concerns about other areas of the Collaborative's operation.

Some of the individuals posting in this thread, Min, Dolphin, Wildcat, myself, for example, are viewing this TYMES Trust report, not in isolation, but in the historical context of the first MRC CFS/ME meetings, the debacle over the 2009 MRC CFS/ME Expert Group's Workshop event, the charity and patient complaints about ethics committee decisions over Esther Crawley's Lightning Process trial in children, the SMC's nasty media campaign in 2013, and in the context of the assembling, in 2013, of this new MRC/SMC Collaborative.


For those of us who have followed the history of the MRC's research activities in relation to ME and CFS since the first
MRC "highlight" notice for CFS/ME research was issued (in 2006, I think) this conference is one event in a long history of MRC involvement, some of which was covered, at the time, on my old ME agenda site.

So there is a good deal of history, here, in relation to the MRC and the setting up and operation of its various CFS/ME research working groups and the events it has held, stretching back to 2009, the existence of which may not be apparent to Chickadee9, whose interest in the Collaborative has possibly been piqued by this two day Bristol conference.

Also Chickadee9 may not be familiar with the work of TYMES Trust, its advocacy for children and families in Parliament and parliamentary interest groups, its close working association with the Countess of Mar and with Dr Nigel Speight, who has championed the Karina Hansen case.

*Edit:

The SCM press briefing was for Dr Lipkin:

http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-encounter-prof-ian-lipkin-columbia-university/

There is a brief reference to the Bristol conference in the above.

And comments from Dr Charles Shepherd, here, on PR:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...erence-1-2-sept-2014.32344/page-5#post-499288

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

It as clear as day to me - and should be to anyone else - that the most likely reason for the Collaborative is the MRC responding to criticism from ME/CFS patients about funding going to the psych lobby. In response Holgate is given the role of setting up a so called 'independent' research group copying his earlier work in Lung Disease. Holgate works with Crawley (a key figure in the UK psych lobby) her acting as deputy chair and perhaps the key figure given Holgate has no research background in ME/CFS. Holgate then contacts Wessely and White to ask who should be approached to be in the group and asks them what the group should be called, and they move forward by also drafting a charter which basically blocks anyone who's ever been critical on the psych lobby etc

Let us not forget that this Collaborative is not the first MRC group set up in relation to "CFS/ME" (see my previous post). There was an earlier group in operation between 2009 and 2010.

(From 2009. Taken from unofficial note prepared by Dr Charles Shepherd MEA, not the official MRC note of the Workshop.]

http://wp.me/p5foE-2q2

Membership of MRC Expert Group on ME/CFS Research [2009]

Professor Stephen Holgate (Chairman)
Professor Jill Belch
Professor Philip Cowen
Dr Esther Crawley
Professor Malcolm Jackson
Dr Jonathan Kerr
Professor Ian Kimber
Professor Hugh Perry
Dr Derek Pheby
Professor Anthony Pinching
Dr Charles Shepherd
Sir Peter Spencer
Dr Rob Buckle (MRC)
Dr Joanna Latimer (MRC)
Dr Charles Shepherd
Hon Medical Adviser, ME Association

23 November 2009

-------------------------------------------------------

Participant List: MRC CFS/ME Research Workshop November 23, 2009

Received by Suzy Chapman from MRC Corporate Information and Policy under FOI:

http://wp.me/p5foE-2q2

MRC CFS/ME Research Workshop

19th and 20th November 2009

Participant list

Dr Neil Abbot – ME Research UK
Professor Jangu Banatvala – King’s College London
Dr Kate Bishop – National Institute for Medical Research
Dr Gijs Bleijenberg – Radbound University [Ed: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen]
Professor Tim Cawston – University of Newcastle
Professor Trudie Chalder – King’s College London
Dr Charlotte Clark – Barts and the London
Professor Philip Cowen – University of Oxford
Dr Esther Crawley – University of Bristol
Professor Maria Fitzgerald – University College London
Dr Suzanne Hagan – Glasgow Caledonian University
Dr Kirstie Haywood – University of Warwick
Professor Stephen Holgate – University of Southampton
Professor Jim Horne – University of Loughborough
Dr Jonathan Kerr – St George’s University of London
Professor Paul Little – University of Southampton
Dr Samuele Marcora – Bangor University
Professor Chris Mathias – Imperial College London
Professor Paul Moss – University of Birmingham
Professor Rona Moss-Morris – University of Southampton
Dr Luis Nacul – London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine
Professor Julia Newton – University of Newcastle
Dr Derek Pheby – ME Observatory
Professor Anthony Pinching – Peninsula Medical School
Professor Chris Ponting – MRC Functional Genomics Unit
Professor Alan Rickinson – University of Birmingham
Dr Charles Shepherd – ME Association
Dr Vance Spence – ME Research UK
Sir Peter Spencer – Action for ME
Dr Jonathan Stoye – National Institute for Medical Research
Professor Chris Ward – University of Nottingham
Professor Peter White – Barts and the London
Mary-Jane Willow – Association of Young People with ME

MRC Head office Staff

Dr Rob Buckle
Dr Jo Latimer

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

In response Holgate is given the role of setting up a so called 'independent' research group copying his earlier work in Lung Disease. Holgate works with Crawley (a key figure in the UK psych lobby) her acting as deputy chair and perhaps the key figure given Holgate has no research background in ME/CFS.

You are missing some of the context, here.

Prof Holgate is a long-standing MRC office holder. So is Prof Hugh Perry.

It is not an "independent" research group. It is funded by the MRC who are major stakeholders. They have invested £5000 for it and will maintain stakeholder interest in it. The UK CMRC is also supported by the National Institute of Health Research and the Wellcome Trust.

And the SMC played a major part in orchestrating a media campaign in the run up to its launch.

 

[seanpaul]

thats were I was being slightly ironic - it wants to appear to be independent but its an MRC cooked up creation to appease disgruntled patient groups who were critical of the MRC - its also a tactic to deflect attention, eg dont criticise the MRC, its the UK/ME Research Collaborative that is an independent group that does x, y, or z.

 

[Sasha]

I think this thread has pretty much jumped the shark for me now. I appreciate people's caution about the Collaborative and it's wise to keep a watch on it but this exclusive focus on everything that we might not like about how it was set up or who it talks to (while ignoring everything that we might like about how it was set up or who it talks to) while the Collaborative is now underway with some very, very positive outcomes, does not seem constructive to me.

I think that the Collaborative's conference at Bristol has been a watershed moment (a phrase put to me by another patient) for us in the UK who want biomedical research in ME to win out. Given the UK BPS school's heretofore pernicious influence worldwide on ME/CFS, it might well also be a watershed worldwide as the UK stops exporting the BPS model of ME and starts exporting good science.

I think that most people see the big picture.

Over and out.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

I agree that the two "non harassment" clauses are a peculiar thing to write into a Terms of Reference or a Charter.

Given that the Executive extends invitations to selected prospective Executive Members and given that it reviews all applications for non executive membership before deciding whether to admit, it's like opening a private members dining club but writing into the Rules that members should not spit at the table or pee on the toilet seats.

So I consider these clauses are being used as a means of conveying a message to the wider public, beyond the executive members, non executive members and associate membership.

I also asked, earlier, what constitutes "orchestrated campaigning" against researchers?

Would that include the type of advocacy work that the MEA and TYMES Trust undertook in 2010 and 2011 in relation to their shared concerns for the ethics of the Prof Crawley and Phil Parker Lightning Process SMILE Trial?

This is an important issue because there are several areas where organisations may need to publicly challenge the work of researchers associated with the Collaborative.

 

[seanpaul]

excellent point - above - a club where the psycho lobby run the board and decide who is a member or not -

there is no watershed moment in the UK for ME patients - perhaps all we are witnessing is the latest more sophisticated embodiment of the psycho lobby, not a Kings College Group, but a UK Collaborative

The real watershed will come when we start getting massive news grabbing headlines that ME is caused by x pathogen or is a serious immune disease - then the men in grey suits at the MRC will send a few million to this new discovery work, rather than continually sending millions to Esther Crawley and Co, who publish what might only be deemed scientific slight of hand research, that is pretty meaningless - this amount of children get fatigue (useful finding, depends of how you define fatigue), or this amount of children were helped by CBT (useless, you cant discount bias and other factors), once the millions and millions given to wasteful research starts been given to totally new research groups, with no psych involvement, then maybe we might have a watershed moment.

Until then, the MRC in cahoots with Holgate and Crawley will continue to pull the strings in UK ME/cFS research - and if you think any different you are a hopeful day dreamer.

 

[ukxmrv]

The silly thing is that all the people on this thread want the same ultimate outcomes, and we agree on the fundamentals. We just disagree on some (but not all) of the finer details of how best to achieve our goals. I consider everyone on this thread to be a friend and ally, and I think we argue because we are all passionate about the subject, and passionately hope for the best research outcomes. It's probably good for us all to step back and remember this from time to time. I've probably been more argumentative in this thread than I should have been. As Esther12 said earlier in the thread, we all agree on much more than we disagree. We just get caught up in the details because we want the best outcomes.

I don't think we can assume that we all want the same outcome. That sounds ridiculous when I write it I know! What I am trying to say (and probably badly) but what is this outcome that we all want and what are the milestones along the way that will signal to us that we are heading in the right direction? Maybe this is where the disagreements come from.

The outcome that I want to see is a cure for ME, that is my type of ME, in my lifetime. I want to be well again at least for a while sometime before I die. That's selfish I know. I'd also like to see a cure for all types of ME, CFS and ME/CFS and CFS/ME as well and I'll work until I eventually pass away to see this happen.

Other people may be happy to see other things - an understanding of that causes ME and CFS in their lifetime or other things entirely. Some may have smaller expectations.

Is the CMRC going to contribute to my goal? I don't know.

My attitude to research and progress was changed during the Gibson Inquiry years ago when Professor Turnberg in commenting on Dr Kerr's gene expression research said that it didn't matter what genes were being expressed differently in PWCFS because Trudie Chalder had told him that CBT could change this, so CBT would still be the treatment.

Why is that important to this debate? It boils down to treatment again for me. What is the CMRC doing about treatment and what will happen about treatment. When they organise a conference on treatment, then they will be heading in the right direction for me. When they fund research into treatment ditto.

 

[Cheshire]

It as clear as day to me - and should be to anyone else -

and if you think any different you are a hopeful day dreamer

There are a lot of different perspectives expressed in this thread, and I don't have a clear opinion about it all. I think there are good points in a lot of pros and cons.

But what I'm sure about is I can't stand this authoritative way of putting things.

 

[Bob]

@ukxmrv , your thoughts are the same as mine... biomedical research that leads to meaningful treatment, and ultimately a cure, for our illness (and/or the illness of those we care for), in our lifetime, and as soon as possible.

And also for all our friends, on the forum and off the forum, to have the same, whatever their type of CFS or ME.

That's exactly what I meant when I said we all want the same ultimate outcome.

 

[seanpaul]

to treat an illness one must first have an idea what you are treating, ie what is the illness and what causes the illness, treating an illness were you have no clue whats causing it, no clue what its doing, an no clue how treatments help or hinder - this is what we have had for 30 years. Stupid science lets say, from tactics by a small handful of psych-loving researchers who benefit personally in monetary terms and career terms. These are the same group running the UK Collaborative, or at least being highly influential.

There should not be a person on here who doesn't want to see ME-CFS treated effectively. Saying you do is great - but who doesn't think the same?

Ramsay outlined this illness in 1955, since the 1970s UK psychiatrists have distorted and manipulated science at every turn to try and convince the world, that ME doesnt even exist no1 and no2 they had the answer - and who got better, no one! Who suffered, many many people on here and around the world. So forgive me if I have a problem with Holgate and Crawley and Wessely running the Collaborative and putting their dirty hands all over a new research group - people need to know the truth.

If you feel its a great thing, great you write about that - I feel obliged to point out the speculative motives of the key figures running the show. Its a bit like beggers being grateful for scraps of food - im not grateful.

 

[worldbackwards]

What was a little uncomfortable about the gushing surrounding this conference is that it is one conference, based largely on either symptom research, which is fairly uncontroversial, or research into other illnesses, which may or may not have significance; the mitochondrial research was, in my fairly uninformed opinion, the only thing that really looked like it was probing underlying causes in ME patients. I've no doubt Holgate has his heart in the right place, but I tend to be reminded of Naomi Klein's description of Jeffrey Sachs at the IMF, that he seems a bit like 'a boy scout who stumbled into an episode of The Sopranos', in that he doesn't seem to be recognising that, with White, Chalder and Wessley, he's essentially dealing with a bunch of gangsters, rather than reasonable scientists.

The next round of funding will probably show which was the wind is blowing far more than this conference and, if it doesn't go the psych lobby's way, expect a nasty backlash a la post XMRV. I respect the charities decision to get involved - all this stuff would have happened anyway, and the usual involvement of AfME/AYME would have been presented as collaborative to an uninformed press, if indeed they are watching - it seems worthwhile to try and get hold of any money that is going. But rattlesnakes do not commit suicide, and if Wessely and co. are involved at the top of this, Holgate is going to have to stand up to them at some point, or this will simply end up as more CBT/GET for the recalcitrant plebs and trebles all round at the Royal College of Psychiatry.

 

[Snowdrop]

@Dx Revision Watch

I went back to the post and saw that you indicated where your material came from. (IiME statement)
It was a long post and I have the memory retention of a gnat or a sea cucumber so am easily .
So thanks for reposting it here for us to read, who may not otherwise have seen it.

". . .viewing this TYMES Trust report, not in isolation, but in the historical context of the first MRC CFS/ME meetings, the debacle over the 2009 MRC CFS/ME Expert Group's Workshop event, the charity and patient complaints about ethics committee decisions over Esther Crawley's Lightning Process trial in children, the SMC's nasty media campaign in 2013, and in the context of the assembling, in 2013, of this new MRC/SMC Collaborative."

I'd also like to comment on the above quote from another of your posts.
I think this is part of the differing of opinion regarding the Collaborative.
Some of us (myself included) are including past behaviour as part of evaluating what to expect from the future.
Some are taking the latest interaction and deciding that more can be accomplished by believing there has truly been enough of a change to warrant a new response from us.

I think it is especially difficult to consider the historical position because it is not 'scientific'. It has no hard facts. There can be no statistical analysis. There is no guarantee of accuracy. Indeed, if some of us remain vigilante and continue to act in whatever way we can we will tend to skew the outcome to that of those claiming all is changed thereby making our position weaker.

But we have seen time and again that science can be abused. Data can be massaged. People believe in scientific 'facts' that are not even vaguely true. A fact that has been massaged to fit a particular conceptual model is not in reality a fact but an artifact of biased thinking.

I think the concerns regarding Wessely et al are still valid although I cannot defend that via science. As I understand it scientific discovery depends a lot on scientists having intuition and gut hunches about where to look further or what avenue is a promising place to start exploring further. Intuition is maligned by some people interested only in facts (and I said some not all).

Facts and intuition both have issues. As mentioned above regarding facts. They are generally massaged to a conceptual model that the researcher is comfortable with. It has to do with psuedo reasoning stemming from emotional rationalisation.
The problem with intuition is when someone takes what they believe to be a likely outcome as fact.

I believe that Wessely and others are still set on blocking proper biomedical research are are still bend on covering their a** to keep their reputation, prestige and funding in tact. They have simply correctly read the writing on the wall as the little real research has dribbled in over the years and is now at a tipping point that cannot be ignored. They are now astutely changing tack.

OK my brain cells are going to protest at this long post. I hope some of what I meant to say is at least partly clear.

 

[seanpaul]

Holgate appears to be a 'company man' to me - put in there by his chums at the MRC to be the face of new UK-MECFS research. He probably was asked at a private club in London's west end, meeting with the Chair of the MRC, "Steven old boy, we are getting a lot of grief from ME charities about funding and research on ME/cFS - they are a difficult bunch, we want you to head up a group to look at this issue for us".. - oh ok then.

From readin the emails Holgate sent to Wessely and Co., he is either best pals with them, which is likely, or is a fool and has no grasp or the acrimony that exists between ME/CFS sufferers and this small clique - either way it shows bias and/or incompetence.

Crawley is the key person now - she is Chair of this and Chair of that, and sits on MRC special committees and research groups, no doubt emailing her friends in London, White and Wessely about every development, but its her power that is important, to decide direction of travel, to distribute funds, to referee papers.

The king pin sits in Kings College casting is spell on his merry followers - and with his position as President of the Royal College of Psychiatry, who knows what he will be getting up.

No doubt, as the psych lobby get wind of these email revelations - they will triple efforts to hide all email communications and minutes of meetings. Holgate will too - you wont see much like this in future !

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Holgate appears to be a 'company man' to me - put in there by his chums at the MRC to be the face of new UK-MECFS research. He probably was asked at a private club in London's west end, meeting with the Chair of the MRC, "Steven old boy, we are getting a lot of grief from ME charities about funding and research on ME/cFS - they are a difficult bunch, we want you to head up a group to look at this issue for us".. - oh ok then.

Prof Holgate chaired the original MRC Expert Group on ME/CFS Research [2009] so it's not surprising he is chairing the 2013 group.

He is Medical Research Council Clinical Professor of Immunopharmacology and Honorary Consultant Physician.

Prof Hugh Perry is Chair Neuroscience and Mental Health Board, MRC

Prof Paul Little:

"Professor Little was the first GP to be awarded a Wellcome HSR training fellowship (for research on health promotion), and the first to be awarded an MRC Clinician Scientist Fellowship (for research on common self-limiting illness), and in addition current major areas of research are in enabling behaviour change both for health professionals and also in empowering patients."