I pulled out some of the bits I was most interested in:
Mark Baker e-mail (p3/48) 18th Jun 2015
"I had been made aware, probably by the same source as you, of the work commissioned in the US. What she didn't mention is the summary situation described in the BMJ recently of no real progress in twenty years, no agreement on causality or disease nature and little prospect of change in the next decade. In these circumstances, it doesn't really matter what we call it, the NICE guideline remains the best summary of effective treatments for most patients with CFS.
It is not really for the NHS to respond to a report commissioned in another country and not yet examined by its commissioner. We would take seriously the views of the relevant esteemed medical associations in the UK, principally the RCP and the RCPsych, when looking at reviewing this guidance around 2018. I am not aware of any reason to do anything before then unless some major new evidence on treatment emerges, and we know that no major studies are in progress."
Mark Baker e-mail (p10/48) 22nd Sept 2015
[In response to Mar letter on US HHS CFS advisory committee recommendations following the IOM report]: "You will be aware that the British academic establishment hold an entirely different view, though not necessarily any better informed."
"It remains a tragedy that this serious and disabling condition has seen so little progress in a generation."
p27/48 - 'Decisions and actions' meeting. Only info on attendees is "SW". Lots of information from this removed as not being in the scope of the FOI request, but presumably a different request could be made for all available information on this meeting.
p35/48 - Cochrane used to justify not changing NICE.
p35/48 28th October e-mail with name of the person they're consulting blanked out.
p37/38 Mark Baker 23rd October e-mail:
"[blank]'s views are certainly worth getting."
"We will still be left with a syndromic state with a broad spectrum of severity, little idea as to aetiology and not much to treat with. I'm not sure why the special interest groups think the guidance needs to change."
IMO this really highlights what a bad job we're doing with explaining that the current guidelines are allowing some clinicans and 'experts' to pretend that things are much better than they truly are.
p38/48 Mark Baker 12th October e-mail:
"Basically I think we remain in a world which is split down the middle between the advocates of CBT and GET, some without assumption as to aetiology, and the believers in a primary neurological condition. The former believe the the PACE trial support their view, and the guidance. The latter believe that the PACE trial confirms their view that the guidelines is harmful because it assumes a primary psychological cause and the GET is directly harmful (to some)."
Again, to me this indicates that we've not been successful in the way we've framed things. He views the debate in the terms set out by Wessely and co. We need to make clear that the primary concern is about patients being misled about the efficacy of CBT/GET, and that being harmful. That is the area where we have the clearest evidence on our side, and that shouldn't be ignored because of distracting disputes about whether ME/CFS should be classed as 'neurological'.