Edward Shorter to give talk on CFS at NIH

JayS

Senior Member
Messages
195
You'd think Walitt--assuming this is correct and he was responsible for the invite--would have chosen differently, knowing that his very presence is unpopular. Instead it was decided that our interpretation of the published research is unimportant, and it was an ideological choice.

I remember seeing that Walitt's presence was downplayed on the basis of his not actually being in charge, that he couldn't influence too much in his role. If this is true, then let's just say I'm not shocked.
 
Messages
4
I have no idea why he was invited, but what worries me is that after the IOM report, P2P report, Dr. Gordon and Dr. Naviaux's PNAS metabolomics papers, the gut bacteria paper etc. there was really no excuse left for NIH not to increase ME/CFS funding.

Now they've found an excuse.

I agree. It's over.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Who would not be most expert to tell the ME history than the patients themselves? Moreover, we have a historian who also happens to be a well seasoned patient, her name is Mary Schweitzer.
 

Deepwater

Senior Member
Messages
208
[QUOTE="SickNotTired, post: 784049, member: 27016"]Look, deep down inside didn't we all know that NIH was never going to work on ME/CFS and was looking into fatigue and they were using us as an excuse to do so and pacified us at the same time.

And we already knew that having Walitt was a gross mistake. And now we know Nath lacks good judgement. And saying Nath lacks good judgment is the best we can say and hopefully not really in on producing a marker for fatigue and mental health.[/QUOTE]


Quite comparable with MEGA in the UK - you know, proper big biomedical study with, wait a bit, vague patient selection criteria and Esther Crawley. That both these pretences at hearing our pleas for biomedical research just happened to surface at more or less the same time seems a little coincidental.

Is it just me, or does it seem slightly implausible that the Establishment shenanigans are simply due to honest ignorance?
 

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
It might be fun to send a carton of 50 Shades Of Grey to wherever they are holding Shorter's talk, so that he can see everyone in the audience has a copy in front of themselves when he takes the podium.

It would also be great if somehow we could ensure that everyone who attends his talk sees that telling Shades of Grey clip.
 
Last edited:

Forbin

Senior Member
Messages
966
I think it's time that we started seeing other historians.


41GwX-0XyCL.jpg





https://www.amazon.com/Sadomasochism-Ardent-Love-Historical-Perspective-ebook/dp/B00886103O/
 

Never Give Up

Collecting improvements, until there's a cure.
Messages
971
http://solvecfs.org/action-alert-denounce-dr-shorter-speaking-at-the-nih/

Action Alert: Denounce Dr. Shorter Speaking at the NIH
Monday, November 7, 2016


















BREAKING NEWS: Last week, deeply troubling information was discovered on an archived National Institutes of Health (NIH) webpage. A lecture titled “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in Historical Perspective” is scheduled for Wednesday, November 9, to be presented by the controversial and inflammatory history professor Edward Shorter, PhD.

A professor of psychiatry and history at the University of Toronto, Shorter is an outspoken skeptic about the biological nature of ME/CFS. He has referred to the disease as both a “psychodrama” and a “psychic epidemic” and called the findings of the Institute of Medicine’s report on ME/CFS last year “junk science.”

Read more about this announcement here: http://solvecfs.org/disparaged-speaker-to-present-at-nih-next-week/.

The Solve ME/CFS Initiative is formally protesting the inclusion of Dr. Shorter as a speaker and writing to the NIH to ask them to provide scientifically grounded balance.

Read SMCI’s letter here: http://solvecfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SMCI-Letter-of-Protest-Dr-Shorter.pdf.

We need your help in contacting your congressional representative ASAP to keep up the pressure on the NIH.

Follow these three easy steps below:

Step 1: Call your representative
To find your U.S. House of Representatives member, visit http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/.

Please note that this action is for REPRESENTATIVES ONLY, NOT SENATORS.

Please call the Washington DC office, not the district office, and ask to speak to the legislative assistant for health. If the legislative assistant is not available, you can ask to leave a message or immediately ask for the e-mail address of the legislative assistant to send him or her your request in writing.

Feel free to tell the legislative assistant your story, but remember to be very brief. Use the sample script below as a guide.

My name is _________. I’m a constituent in {city}. I am calling with an urgent request for Representative {NAME} to contact the National Institutes of Health. The NIH has invited an inflammatory and controversial speaker, Dr. Shorter, who denies that ME/CFS is a physical disease. Between 1 to 2.5 million Americans like me [or my family member] who are afflicted with the horrific, disabling, and costly disease myalgic encephalomyelitis, also known as chronic fatigue syndrome or ME/CFS. ME/CFS has no known cause, cure, diagnostic test, or FDA-approved treatment, and it often leaves patients bedridden for decades. Please urge Representative {NAME} to support patients and voice their concern about this troubling speaker who calls me [or my family member] “delusional.” May I have your e-mail address to send you additional information?

If you do not receive an e-mail address for a particular staffer, ask for the general comment e-mail address.

Step 2: E-mail your representative
After you speak to the staff person by phone, it is always helpful to follow up with an e-mail. Download a helpful ME/CFS issue fact sheet here (http://solvecfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SMCI-NIH-Response-Flaws-Flier.pdf) to include with your e-mail. Feel free to personalize the e-mail below.

Dear Congress Member [LAST NAME],

As a constituent and as a (caregiver to / loved one of) a patient with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), commonly known as chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), I am bringing your attention to the immediate need for Congress to assist ME/CFS patients. In September, 55 bipartisan members of the House of Representatives joined together to write to NIH Director Francis Collins regarding ME/CFS. That letter was not enough, and we need your help now.

As you may know, ME/CFS is a complex disease with no known cause, treatment, diagnostic tool, nor cure. The CDC estimates that up to 2.5 million Americans suffer from ME/CFS, and patients have lower quality of life scores than those with lung cancer, stroke, and rheumatoid arthritis. According to the 2015 Institute of Medicine Report on ME/CFS, the disease costs the U.S. economy an estimated $17-$24 billion per year.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) has not taken substantial action. When Director Collins responded to Congress, he wrote of an ME/CFS Interest group, a lecture series, and the promise of funding to come. Read more about Director Collins’s response here: http://solvecfs.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/SMCI-NIH-Response-Flaws-Flier.pdf.

And the NIH continues to disregard the legitimate needs of ME/CFS patients. On Wednesday, November 9, the NIH’s clinical center is scheduled to host a lecture given by Dr. Edward Shorter, a historian at the University of Toronto and one of the most controversial and inflammatory figures to the ME/CFS patient community. This man, despite overwhelming scientific evidence, does not believe ME/CFS is an actual disease—instead calling it a “psychic epidemic” perpetrated by “moaning and groaning victims” who are “delusional.” Dr. Shorter has written pieces so disparaging of patients that they were removed from circulation by Psychology Today.

The NIH is clearly not prioritizing a solution to ME/CFS when they provide a forum for a speaker who demeans patients and denies scientific findings. I am asking you to please stand with patients who are very ill with this very REAL physiological disease, as verified by thousands of published scientific articles.

Please contact NIH Director Francis Collins and ask him to

  • Present scientifically grounded information to NIH researchers. If the NIH insists on including an inflammatory and controversial speaker who offers no scientific rigor, please balance this with an opposing expert such as Mary Dimmock, author of 30 Years of Disdain: How HHS and a Group of Psychiatrists Buried Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
  • Reaffirm the findings of the Institute of Medicine report that ME/CFS is a true physiological disease, not a psychological one.
  • Prioritize ME/CFS funding with substantial investment commensurate with the burden of this devastating disease.
Only continued oversight from you and your colleagues in Congress will induce the NIH to take the actions necessary to help patients.

Very truly yours,

(NAME)

Step 3: Let us know how it went
E-mail our advocacy and engagement manager, Emily Taylor (etaylor@solvecfs.org), to let us know your member of Congress received the message.

Thank you for doing your part to advocate on behalf of all the patients who suffer with this disease.
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
The NIH should be open to hearing the views of controversial figures to - so long as what is said is also publicly available for others to dispute. A big problem for me is that it seems as if Shorter is not there as a controversial figure putting forth fringe ideas, but to give a history of CFS. There's nothing to indicate any warning that his view of this history is controversial.

I've not been collecting Shorter links, so don't have much to post on his writings. I posted a paper that has a discussion between Shorter and Wessely here:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...-more-morality-and-philosophy-than-cfs.13045/

It seems a terrible idea to focus on whether or not Shorter believes ME/CFS is 'an actual physical disease', rather than on how it is that he thinks patients should be spoken to and treated. Those who think ME/CFS is a 'psychic epidemic' should still be appalled by his work!

That Solve ME/CFS Initiative letter isn't great imo, and risks strengthening Shorter while making patients look unreasonable.
 

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
Look, deep down inside didn't we all know that NIH was never going to work on ME/CFS and was looking into fatigue and they were using us as an excuse to do so and pacified us at the same time.
I was always very suspicious of the NIH's emphasis on neuroimaging studies. This is such a common methodology for studying disorders believed to have a strong psychological component. In 99% of these studies, such evidence is interpreted as further support for a psychological explanation.

We are so desperate for any research that might show that we're not just "making all this up", we didn't notice that.

It seems a terrible idea to focus on whether or not Shorter believes ME/CFS is 'an actual physical disease', rather than on how it is that he thinks patients should be spoken to and treated. Those who think ME/CFS is a 'psychic epidemic' should still be appalled by his work!
I agree, the strongest way to argue against such views is not by presenting biomedical counterevidence (they can easily dismiss that as part of our delusion) but by attacking the actual arguments head on.
 
Last edited:

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
@Esther12 , from your thread.

I'm stunned at this. For a minute, you might think this person is a doctor, but he is a historian with an "interest" in women's diseases/ women's bodies, rape and BDSM!
Shorter. I do not see a contradiction here at all. The physician has a whole bag of psychological tricks for dealing
with chronic psychosomatic illness, chronic somatization. It is very important not to legitimate these toxic diagnoses, and there is no doubt that multiple chemical sensitivity and chronic fatigue syndrome are toxic diagnoses, because they cause the patients to become fixated upon their symptoms and to dig in even further so that they acquire a sense of hopelessness.

Now, you do not have to endorse the patient's illness representations in order to treat the patient in a humane and
serious way in the patient-doctor relationship. You do not have to contradict the patient. You can diplomatically slide over the illness attributions in silence, at the same time taking the patient's symptoms seriously in other ways.
 

Hope123

Senior Member
Messages
1,266
I was always very suspicious of the NIH's emphasis on neuroimaging studies. This is such a common methodology for studying disorders believed to have a strong psychological component. In 99% of these studies, such evidence is interpreted as further support for a psychological explanation.

We are so desperate for any research that might show that we're not just "making all this up", we didn't notice that.


I agree, the strongest way to argue against such views is not by presenting biomedical counterevidence (they can easily dismiss that as part of our delusion) but by attacking the actual arguments head on.

Actually, neuroimaging studies are used for many, many medical conditions including stroke, Alzheimer's dementia, traumatic brain injury, etc. so there is no linkage really with only psychological/ psychiatric conditions. Some of the strongest physiological evidence behind ME/CFS stem from neuroimaging studies include Watanabe's on neuroinflammation, Lange's on how ME/CFS brains function under exertion, Natelson's on cerebral blood flow, and Shungu's on anaerobic metabolism in the brain (one of 3 papers). Those are NOT delusions but hard evidence. And I'm not even presenting an exhaustive picture.

Not that I expect non-scientists to understand this stuff but let's not make any blanket statements that could potentially decrease funding for this area.
 

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
Actually, neuroimaging studies are used for many, many medical conditions including stroke, Alzheimer's dementia, traumatic brain injury, etc. so there is no linkage really with only psychological/ psychiatric conditions. Some of the strongest physiological evidence behind ME/CFS stem from neuroimaging studies include Watanabe's on neuroinflammation, Lange's on how ME/CFS brains function under exertion, Natelson's on cerebral blood flow, and Shungu's on anaerobic metabolism in the brain (one of 3 papers). Those are NOT delusions but hard evidence. And I'm not even presenting an exhaustive picture.

Not that I expect non-scientists to understand this stuff but let's not make any blanket statements that could potentially decrease funding for this area.
Thanks for explaining that to me, @Hope123! We "non-scientists" find it all so confusing!
 

ghosalb

Senior Member
Messages
136
Location
upstate NY
May be we should boycott NIH...all good work so far has been done outside NIH and w/o much of their funding. They can not proceed if patients don't co-operate. If they are just starting to learn about this illness, starting with a historian, clearly they are way behind and slow to respond. I will be surprised if anything worthwhile comes out of NIH before any of the researchers working outside NIH. May be we are giving them too much importance. Too bad we taxpayers paid for all those fancy tools they have collected.
 

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
Actually, neuroimaging studies are used for many, many medical conditions including stroke, Alzheimer's dementia, traumatic brain injury, etc. so there is no linkage really with only psychological/ psychiatric conditions. Some of the strongest physiological evidence behind ME/CFS stem from neuroimaging studies include Watanabe's on neuroinflammation, Lange's on how ME/CFS brains function under exertion, Natelson's on cerebral blood flow, and Shungu's on anaerobic metabolism in the brain (one of 3 papers). Those are NOT delusions but hard evidence. And I'm not even presenting an exhaustive picture.

Not that I expect non-scientists to understand this stuff but let's not make any blanket statements that could potentially decrease funding for this area.
Sorry, @Hope123, you deserved a better response than what i gave before, you had some very valid points.

The studies you list are genuinely part of the 1%. I agree. So I can see your reasoning for favouring them. I just worry about the other 99%, and with those taken into the bargain (and knowing the identities of some of the researchers involved, which does not bode well), I feel that neuroimaging is not the place to be putting our support. Just going on some recent discussions here which I took part in:

Here we discussed another goodish one (supports your argument):
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ional-connectivity-in-patients-with-cfs.47119

Here are some recent discussions of examples of the other 99%:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...oor-reward-sensitivity-in-childhood-cfs.47155
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...adolescent-cfs-a-pilot-study-using-fmri.46954
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...roimaging-mri-fmri-spect-and-pet-scans.44961/
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?posts/732024/
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?posts/696596/

Also, you might like to check out my neurobabble meter:
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...leep-rhythm-disorder.44998/page-2#post-732401
 
Last edited:

viggster

Senior Member
Messages
464
If you have not read David Tuller's articles or Hilary Johnson's book Osler's Web, I would encourage you to do so as they explain why patients are upset and frustrated (and rightly so).
Yep, I plugged Hillary's book in the Washington Post and have talked with David several times.

Also, for educational purposes, the great majority of advocates are reasonable people and appreciative of those who take the time genuinely to listen to concerns.

That's great, and I do appreciate all the hard work advocates have done over the years & decades.

What bothers me is when people decide that a one-hour talk means the very very worst. It's a dumb decision by someone (we still don't know who). It's an insult and I wish the talk wasn't happening. But we still have a very strong protocol: CCC criteria, with investigation of PEM as a secondary objective. That's still all in place. We don't know how many of the 35 or so scientists working on this study will attend the talk Wednesday. I have trouble believing that, say, an immunologist or cardiologist or neuroscientist is going to listen to Shorter's extreme views and come away convinced that he has the answer to this disorder.
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
I would also remind people that this is not the first time NIH invited someone with outdated/ biased information to give a talk to their staff about ME/CFS. Read about Dr. Fred Gill back in 2011. Advocates and others also protested then but it appears NIH still has not learned their lesson.
So Gill gives a whacky talk full of offensive psychobabble to the NIH in 2011, and in 2016 finds himself clinical expert responsible for making a final assessment of diagnostic validity in the NIH's super new CFS study.

Shorter gives an even whackier (yes, it seems it's possible) talk in 2016, and we are supposed to be reassured that they won't pay him any attention. Gill shared the same stage with two biomedical researchers but it didn't stop the NIH giving him and his cronies key jobs in their new study five years later.

Gill seems to be in a similar position to EC on the MEGA trial - gatekeeper. Looks like it's a position they quite like - if you must do biomedical studies at least let us decide who's on them. And in both cases we are placated with "they don't have any real influence, look at all the other brilliant scientists on the team".

Big science on a cohort of patients defined by psychobabblers with a written track record of nothing but contempt for ME sufferers seems to be becoming a bit of a thing.
 
Back