Counter petition to the MEGA petition, brainstorming stage

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
Do we have any idea why they feel they need to study such a huge amount of patients, it seems like a ludicrously high amount?
I don't although, other, brainier, people may be able to explain.

This (http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/me-cfs-grand-challenge-mega.44637/) was the original thread when MEGA was first announced, just looking at the first couple of posts and Simon (who is one of the many brainier than me ;)) notes that there is little detail - I don't think this has changed yet.

I've just seen this on the Iime fb page https://www.facebook.com/groups/5804522506/

Tony Bradstock I'm no legal mind, but how would it be if White et al were taken to court to answer the question of fraud ? Would the very fact of them facing charges exclude them from involvement in MEGA ? I only ask the question, but as they have caused doctors to be suspended pending investigation, would the same not apply ?

Any thoughts?
As far as I'm concerned, if people want to go for that then more power to them, the PACE crooks should be held accountable. However, that is quite a few steps beyond my capabilities.
 

Jan

Senior Member
Messages
458
Location
Devon UK
Hi all, I'm holding fire on this at the moment for a short while.

I have received this response from Charles Shepherd regarding contacting the CMRC;

So I want to see Dr Shepherds comments first and, probably being overoptimistic, I want to see if we get some kind of comment from AfME. I don't know when the next CMRC meeting is, though I suspect it won't be for some time, I have asked for this information though.

I can also see that the original MEGA petition progress, as I suspected, has slowed dramatically. Four days ago it had reached 1,500 signatures, as at the time of this post it has got to 1,980. Also of note is that it appears that signatures are not limited to the UK, as the second most liked comment is from someone in Queensland, Australia.

Question is, do we trust Sonya to pass everything on, or just the ones she selects?
 

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
Update to original petition
Update to Alliance membership
M.E./CFS Epidemiology and Genomics Alliance (MEGA)
United Kingdom
3 Oct 2016 — Two members of the Alliance have retired from the group: Simon Collins, University of Bristol, will be changing universities; Prof Peter White, Queen Mary University, London, is retiring from research at the end of this year and will have an advisory role.

We will be launching a series of blogs this week from MEGA members outlining why they joined MEGA and what their expertise and field/discipline has to offer.
Perhaps White will be advising on ways to manipulate data perhaps? ;)
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
White retiring from research is good news, but as advisor he can still do a lot of damage. That the MEGA team continues to collaborate with White suggests they do not understand key issues.

It is unacceptable that they continue to collaborate with a fraudster that has exploited patients to advance his own interests. See PACE.

Both Crawley and White orchestrated a smear campaign against patients critical of their work. The tribunal hearing in the ICO vs QMUL case showed that the accusations of death threats and harassment were baseless. Legitimate criticism and requests for data were conflated with harassment - this only served the purpose of protecting bad science produced by the BPS lobby from being exposed.

They have repeatedly demonstrated their incompetence in matters of research, producing one flawed study after another, wasting resources and producing nothing of value for patients.

Research is moving towards democratisation. White and Crawley are despised by patients and need to go.
 
Last edited:
Messages
25
Bad idea to complain about a profession anyway. There are good and bad psychiatrists. We just seem to have attracted a lot of the worst of them!

I agree with that principle re criticising a profession, but I don't see that psychiatry has any place in a biomedical study so I want all psychiatrists removed. Or at the very least all that believe ME is a psychiatric condition or has anything more than secondary psychiatric symptoms, in other words the psychobabble brigade (though clearly we can't refer to them as that in the petition).

In fact that may potentially include any of the other researchers even if psychiatry is not their field. I have yet to see a justification for anyone explaining why psychiatrists have a place in biomedical research. Are there any other fields where they are involved in what purports to be purely biomedical research into a physical condition? Is it normal?

If we cannot go for having certain people removed then why not push for either insisting on psychiatric research being removed from studies into ME altogether as they have had more than their fair share and got nowhere meaningful with it so it's biomedicals turn now. Or to insist that any psychiatric research is completely separated from the biomedical stuff.

I agree with Sacha's comment that AfME are not the ME organisation to be involved. Whilst I also agree that communication and cooperation is important rather than demands, I firmly believe, particularly at this stage, that no research is better than the wrong research.
 

slysaint

Senior Member
Messages
2,125
Also of note is that it appears that signatures are not limited to the UK, as the second most liked comment is from someone in Queensland, Australia.
I noticed that too; how is it accepting votes from non-UK people? Anyone not from UK tried 'signing' the UK Stop Get petition?
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,670
Location
UK
I noticed that too; how is it accepting votes from non-UK people? Anyone not from UK tried 'signing' the UK Stop Get petition?

Is this merely to inflate the figures even though the person could not take part in the research? I thought the whole point of the petition was to give reassurance that sufficient numbers of participants were available to partake in the research. Perhaps the petition design wasn't proof read.
 

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
I could potentially see a use for psychiatrists in screening out people with a primary psychological complaint but I'd be surprised if the selection process went to this kind of depth - however we still don't know enough details.

Is this merely to inflate the figures even though the person could not take part in the research? I thought the whole point of the petition was to give reassurance that sufficient numbers of participants were available to partake in the research. Perhaps the petition design wasn't proof read.
Honestly, I doubt they thought about the possibility.
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,670
Location
UK
I could potentially see a use for psychiatrists in screening out people with a primary psychological complaint but I'd be surprised if the selection process went to this kind of depth - however we still don't know enough details.


Honestly, I doubt they thought about the possibility.

Seriously? Then I wouldn't trust them with trial design...............let alone let them lose with a test tube in their hand.
 

slysaint

Senior Member
Messages
2,125
I noticed that too; how is it accepting votes from non-UK people? Anyone not from UK tried 'signing' the UK Stop Get petition?
I could potentially see a use for psychiatrists in screening out people with a primary psychological complaint but I'd be surprised if the selection process went to this kind of depth - however we still don't know enough details.


Honestly, I doubt they thought about the possibility.

I don't think the petition has anything to do with selecting potential subjects as anyone can sign whether they have ME or not.
Is this merely to inflate the figures even though the person could not take part in the research? I thought the whole point of the petition was to give reassurance that sufficient numbers of participants were available to partake in the research. Perhaps the petition design wasn't proof read.

Yes it has to be to inflate figures; I doubt if they get the number of signatures they need that it will subsequently be broken down into how many are from the UK and how many are not.

On those grounds, shouldn't someone question the whole validity of the petition?
@charles shepherd ?
 

Sidereal

Senior Member
Messages
4,856
I could potentially see a use for psychiatrists in screening out people with a primary psychological complaint but I'd be surprised if the selection process went to this kind of depth - however we still don't know enough details.

With 12,000 participants the chances of prospective participants being screened by a research psychiatrist are nil. This would cost an enormous amount. I suspect they will be screened by unskilled research assistants or nurses.
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
This statement will be going up on the MEA website later today:

The MEGA (ME/CFS Epidemiology and Genetics Alliance) 'big data' research study - some comments from Dr Charles Shepherd following the CMRC conference

I can understand all the concerns, criticisms and questions about the MEGA study that are being expressed by the ME/CFS patient community on internet discussion forums

I can also assure people that they will be transferred back to those at the CMRC (CFS/ME Research Collaborative) who are involved in preparing what is probably going to be the largest ever research grant application relating to ME/CFS here in the UK

There are clearly a number of key decisions still to be made. And if anyone followed the proceedings at the CMRC conference in Newcastle last week they will know that I raised the crucial issue of patient selection criteria (narrow or broad) with Professor George Davey Smith and Dr Esther Crawley during the discussion section

The key point I want to make at this stage is that the MEGA study is an important and complex new item of ME/CFS research that is going to make use of a wide range of relatively new and exciting technologies - metabolomics, proteomics, genomics, epigenetics etc

The MEGA study will also involve some very high profile BIOMEDICAL scientists of international repute - several of whom are completely new to ME/CFS

Researchers who will be involved include:

 Genomics - Prof George Davey-Smith (Bristol), Prof Chris Ponting (Edinburgh), Prof Colin Smith (Brighton)

 Epigenetics - Prof Caroline Relton (Bristol)

 Proteomics (Mr Tony Bartlett, Somalogic)

 Metabolomics (Dr Rick Dunn, Birmingham)

 Routinely collected data - Prof Andrew Morris (Edinburgh) and Prof David Ford (Swansea)

 Infection - Prof Paul Moss (Birmingham)

 Sleep - Prof Jim Horne (Loughborough)

 Pain - Prof Maria Fitzgerald (UCL)

 Prof Julia Newton (Newcastle)


The MEGA study has also attracted the very positive attention of the Wellcome Trust - the largest provider of non governmental funding for biomedical research here in the UK and the largest research funding charity in the world

Wellcome Trust: https://wellcome.ac.uk

And the numbers of patients involved is going to be huge - around 10,000 adults and 2,000 children

However, when it comes to the aims and objectives of the research, there are some serious misunderstandings and inaccuracies being circulated on the internet as to how this 'big data' is going to be collected, analysed and used. This is NOT a treatment trial in any sense of the word and it has nothing to do with PACE, CBT or GET.

If we are going to make progress in trying to sort out the different clinical and pathological sub-groups/phenotypes that currently come under the very messy umbrella of ME/CFS, as well as those with unexplained chronic fatigue, AND in the process develop diagnostic biomarkers that could then be used as objective diagnostic tests to identify specific sub-groups of patients that come under this ME/CFS umbrella, ALONG WITH helping to identify specific forms of treatment that are aimed at these specific sub-groups, we are going to have to look at the whole spectrum of patients who are currently being diagnosed with ME, CFS or ME/CFS, and possibly unexplained chronic fatigue as well

So the numbers need to be huge and a study of this nature may also need to include people with chronic fatigue states whom we will then want to exclude for both our benefit and for their benefit

Getting this right (in my opinion) will clearly be dependent on having very detailed clinical information accompanying the biological samples - as is the case with the ME/CFS Biobank where we can check what diagnostic criteria (and symptoms) accompanies each individual blood sample that has been collected and stored

I am not yet clear as to how this will be done in this study - which Is why I asked the question on patient selection at the conference. The nearest information we have was the reply from Dr Esther Crawley in which she stated that patients will meet NHS diagnostic criteria for ME/CFS and will be recruited from the NHS hospital based referral centres for people with ME/CFS

So I would ask the ME/CFS patient community to see how the protocol develops and what information and inclusion criteria are going to be used

If you are happy with the final research proposal then there will obviously be ways of expressing public support

If not there will be ways of saying so as well!

As Professor Jonathan Edwards has already said on the Phoenix Rising forum:

"I think the project must be welcome but I am surprised by this sort of canvassing for support. So far no details are available of who would do what. Surely patients are entitled to judge a project on the basis of a written application, just as scientists do"

So I hope that those people who are wanting to simply strangle this proposal before it has even been properly finalised will think very carefully about what they are doing - especially if this is mainly because they disagree with the inclusion of certain specific researchers

It is difficult enough getting new and distinguished scientists and researchers, and major research funders such as the Wellcome Trust, interested in this subject without trying to scare them off almost as soon as they express a serious desire to get stuck into in a huge multidisciplinary project such as this, and the protocol is still being developed

If people want to express concerns, criticisms, or have questions to ask, then I suggest that this should be done in the form of an open letter to the Board of the CMRC, which could be signed by anyone expresing such concerns, rather than a petition

Dr Charles Shepherd
Hon Medical Adviser, MEA

Conflicts of Interest:
CS is a member of the Board of the CMRC but is not direcltly involved in the preparation of the MEGA research application

LINKS:
MEGA research project website:
https://www.change.org/p/support-th...-its-application-to-major-uk-research-funders

ME/CFS Biobank:
http://cureme.lshtm.ac.uk
 

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
Thank you for your post Dr Shepherd, getting some interaction on this subject is very much appreciated.

This is NOT a treatment trial in any sense of the word and it has nothing to do with PACE, CBT or GET.
So I have to ask, why the involvement of BPS supporters? You, given your greater interaction with the patient community, must have had an appreciation of the response large sections of the community would have to their involvement. As far as I, as well as many others, can see there is no benefit to this project by their involvement at all.

So I would ask the ME/CFS patient community to see how the protocol develops and what information and inclusion criteria are going to be used

f you are happy with the final research proposal then there will obviously be ways of expressing public support

If not there will be ways of saying so as well!
So why are we being asked to endorse it now before all of this is established.

So I hope that those people who are wanting to simply strangle this proposal before it has even been properly finalised will think very carefully about what they are doing - especially if this is mainly because they disagree with the inclusion of certain specific researchers
Personally, I think you are seriously misrepresenting the majority reaction of the community here. The vast number of comments that I have seen are confirming that we are desperate for biomedical research and would offer our support, as long as there are no BPS supporters involved. If those involved in the CMRC can not understand this stance then I would suggest that they would benefit from engaging with patient population more.

It is difficult enough getting new and distinguished scientists and researchers, and major research funders such as the Wellcome Trust, interested in this subject without trying to scare them off almost as soon as they express a serious desire to get stuck into in a huge multidisciplinary project such as this, and the protocol is still being developed
No, as I comment above, the majority of comments are pro-biomedical research but anti-BPS. There is a section which are highly suspicious particularly because there is insufficient detail released so far and yet we are asked to endorse it via the petition. Action for ME's involvement also sours patient engagement for historical reasons.

If people want to express concerns, criticisms, or have questions to ask, then I suggest that this should be done in the form of an open letter to the Board of the CMRC, which could be signed by anyone expresing such concerns, rather than a petition
And the difference between the two is lost on me, especially, to labour the point, when a petition is being used to gather our support. Why did MEGA not use an open letter, so that anyone who supported their project could then sign it?

I really do appreciate you taking the time to engage with us but the fact that you have had to just highlights the problems that exist. The way that this has been dealt with by CMRC/MEGA suggests how poorly they think of the patient community as a whole.

(All my own opinion as well as my own interpretation of general moods in the patient population)
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
@charles shepherd thanks for the update.

Sadly I am not reassured by this. I'm getting the sense that we are not given answers to key questions that could be readily answered. What is the role of White and Crawley? Surely you won't tell me that their role has yet to be decided?

If the other researchers are new to ME/CFS and need someone familiar with the condition to guide them, why not pick guides that patients do not despise? Someone from the US already involved in omics perhaps?
 
Last edited:
Back