Science Media Centre with Holgate/Crawley/McCrone - more anti-patient prejudice? (FITNET)

eafw

Senior Member
Messages
936
Location
UK
Pity the UK parents of children with CFS/ME- we have all been bombarded over the last 24 hours with well meaning friends/family/colleagues telling us the exciting news....

It shows how people are influenced by these things

t seems more like AfME is leading to Newton being worse, rather than Newton getting AfME to be better!

Yes. I'm disappointed. Expected better from her.
 

Daisymay

Senior Member
Messages
754
Yeah - that was annoying. It's like they're doing all they can to play in to lazy prejudices about patient's concerns.

It seems more like AfME is leading to Newton being worse, rather than Newton getting AfME to be better!


I've asked AfME if that comment from Julia Newton relates to FITNET or was it a general quote from the past which they slotted into their article.
 

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
My own little pet theory to add to this is that POTS can be a cause of people thinking they are anxious and/or sufferers become anxious on standing due to the symptoms. I at least attribute this to be the cause of what I previously believed to be anxiety.
Sure, the cause of the emotion could very well be physiological.
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Yes I agree it is better balanced than yesterday's articles and good to have a description of some suffering severe ME as opposed to those awful picture yesterday of the woman on the loo with headache etc.

What I don't get is this.

If EC is now insisting that ME is biological but that CBT is capable of changing our biology, why the hell is this miracle cure not being used to cure cancer, MS, Parkinsons and every other serious disease out there because surely if its mind over matter for a biological disease such as ME it must be applicable to every other disease. No more need for expensive medications, chemo and other treatments, it could be saving the NHS a fortune and in fact save the NHS.
I suspect this is EC's way of shifting her stance towards what she may suspect looks like becoming the winning side, given latest biological research, and the exposure of PACE. A political animal to the last I imagine.
 

ZeroGravitas

Senior Member
Messages
141
Location
UK
Will have to see if it makes print copy.
It did! On page 18 of today's (erm... yesterdays) iPaper. Great work by Scott. :)
Scott FB post sml.jpg

OMF and #MEAction Network tweeting it:
No, I meant the "63% recover within six months" must be wrong. There is no way that an website-based therapy is going to produce a 63% recovery rate, unless you are defining "recovery" to mean something other than its normal dictionary meaning (which is what they often do in these psychological studies: you find they redefine the term "recovery" to mean something different to the normal use of that word).

Or unless there are non-ME/CFS patients in the study cohort, due to sloppy inclusion criteria in the study.
Oh right, sorry. Yes of course 63% 'recovery' is meaningless. I guess I took that for granted. But with the criterion being so loose (within 2 SD of controls), I'm surprised more of the usual treatments group weren't also straight into that, on the first review (and why they've been quoting 8% when the graphed data, in follow up report, showed closer to double that.) I kind of assumed that the starting 0% recovered data point is actually just an assumption, that if they are in the trial they are ill, but might involve different measurement criterion to the later assessments, as PACE did. Sorry, didn't manage to digest both those Dutch papers. Definitely a lot of non-true-CFS persons included too, as you say.

Although it is called CBT an awful lot of it is also education for parents and children about living with CFS/ME and balancing activity and rest/sleep hygiene. Most of my sons visits to the "specialist" are by SKYPE anyway so this is just one step further away and can be done without appointment- less staffing for NHS.
I'd would have said that providing advice, support and 'home appointments' are the redeeming factors of this FITNET fiasco. But are you saying these things are already provided (to an extent, in some places)? That's good, if so. And yes, who would want to be a parent in such an impossible situation. Eek. :-\

For me, the whole: 'it's no miracle cure, but this is the best option we have available NOW' rings so empty, when all FITNET actual is, is a fairly modest trial that will take 6 years to report back. That's not 'now', that's not a stop-gap emergency measure, as it will change nothing for almost everyone. How long as that been a argument for psychological interventions in the past, already? Decades? As has been said, I fully expect these new, precise biomarker/causative findings, within the next year or so, will blow a hole right through the FITNET, etc, approach.
 

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
I had not realized the NICE diagnostic guidelines (which are not meant for research, surely) are only 3 months for children. Also, only one other symptom is stupid.
To be fair to NICE, the fatigue should be debilitating and feature post-exertional something-or-other. But Crawley always ignores the post-exertional aspect and characterizes ME/CFS as 3 months of debilitating fatigue. It's a good reason to object to her involvement in selecting patients.

My own little pet theory to add to this is that POTS can be a cause of people thinking they are anxious and/or sufferers become anxious on standing due to the symptoms. I at least attribute this to be the cause of what I previously believed to be anxiety.
The symptoms of anxiety and OI have nearly complete overlap. The difference is that a patient should experience the feeling of anxiety (provoking the episode) for a diagnosis of anxiety. But quacks tend to ignore that requirement in favor of claiming that OI patients are just repressing their awareness or acknowledgement of their presumed anxiety.
 

Jenny TipsforME

Senior Member
Messages
1,184
Location
Bristol
'it's no miracle cure, but this is the best option we have available NOW'
It may be emptybut seems to work on journalists. seems to come across as reasonable.

I think it is reasonable for someone like me to say something like that. In fact on my blog i do say something quite similar eg this is a biological disease but here are a few tips that may help you manage it in the meantime. BUT I'm a lone patient with no power to conduct large scale research to actually get to the root ofthe problem.

EC on theother hand is using something like £1,000,000 of public money on a technique already shown to be ineffective in a trial which will take years (so not a quick, it will do for now strategy) in the context of other rapidly evolving research which appears to be unearthing the actual root cause. This can't be viewed as reasonable. Will the results seem laughable by the time they're published?
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,671
Location
UK

I don't think the author quite 'gets' it.

He advises that people change their lifestyle to combat the illness, take time to enjoy life, ,promote' sports....................

Thank you Esther for misleading France as well..........................

May we Brits send out apologies to the rest of the world for not being able to control the embarrassing nonsense that spews out the mouths of our BPS proponents and leading your doctors down the garden path once again.................
 

Molly98

Senior Member
Messages
576
I have just watched the Dr Bateman Global Progress Report giving an overview of recent developments and scientific research from the two conferences in Sweden and the US-


It is fantastic well worth watching, made me feel very positive and hopeful after 2 days of feeling very frustrated and quite despairing at British media and medical situation.

I think this video is an excellent way of us letting the science do the talking.

I am wondering whether the strategy of each of us consistently commenting on articles, in the Newspapers on social media, with one small sentence and a link to this video may be far better than trying to enter into debate or trying to argue our point, which is seen as just an opinion.

Perhaps a short sentence just pointing out how far behind and backwards this BPS CBT approach is compared to rest of the world and then the link.

Or if people want evidence go to link...

What they fail to tell you - go to link...

or what a waste of tax payers money...

or how deceptive and misleading and public and patients being mislead..

I am going to repost in a couple of other threads just to spread the link and idea more widely. So sorry if you see this repeated.

This is what we need the public and media to see the evidence themselves, it speaks for itself no exhausting arguments needed. Us just keeping it short, consistent and concise, people just need the correct information and we repeat and repeat and repeat ( that's what they do in marketing isn't it!)
 

Cheesus

Senior Member
Messages
1,292
Location
UK
I've had a response from the BBC following my complaint. Here it is:

Many thanks for getting in touch about BBC News.

Whilst we’re disappointed to learn that you were unhappy with our coverage, we'd clarify that this is the largest clinical trial of an intervention in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) / Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and is being directly funded by the National Institute for Health Research (the research wing of the National Health Service). This makes it a significant story.

Our coverage has been a mix of why the researchers have decided to undertake the trial and the personal experiences of patients (particularly children) with the disease. The Association of Young People with ME – a charity that represents children with the disease – and the UK’s Medical Research Council both say there has been a lack of attention given to CFS / ME and that this trial is needed.

The BBC cannot ignore stories like this and has reported a broad range of CFS / ME research - including striving to find a biological cause in www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31644618; the difficulties along the way in www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15017660; the threats sent to people researching the field in www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14326514; and why discussing the disease has become so toxic in www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14883651.

We hope our reply here helps to clarify our approach. Many thanks once again for taking the time to get in touch.

Kind Regards

BBC Complaints Team
www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

After reading their response you would be forgiven for thinking that I asked them not to report on it. I very specifically did not do that. What I actually did was ask them to make their coverage balanced so that they include people with differing perspectives in the story and so that they include the long-term follow-up on the trial in Holland.

They completely missed the point and/or fobbed me off.
 
Messages
1,446
.
BBC response to @Cheesus :

"..The BBC cannot ignore stories like this and has reported a broad range of CFS / ME research - including striving to find a biological cause in www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31644618; the difficulties along the way in www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15017660; the threats sent to people researching the field in www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14326514; and why discussing the disease has become so toxic in www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14883651."



Wow. That response it utterly outrageous. Call themselves journalists? The alleged 'threats' have been debunked in a Court of Law, Appeal Tribunal.

The FITNET study has not actually been done yet. The BBC was not reporting results from Crawleys study, but regurgitating misinformation about much earlier Dutch studies, not reporting the null result at follow up.

The positive media blitz looks more and more like a recruiting drive for the UK FITNET. The study wants 700 participants from the Bristol/Avon/westcountry area.. PACE had trouble recruiting 600 odd nationwide.


Do you have a link to your letter to the BBC, Cheesus?
.
 
Last edited:

Cheesus

Senior Member
Messages
1,292
Location
UK
@Wildcat

It's not the best. I wrote it in a rage not long after I had woken up. I've shifted where I put the links in the quote below, however the text remains the same as in the complaint I made.

The recent article "Landmark chronic fatigue trial could treat two-thirds" suggests that young people with CFS/ME can be treated successfully by pursuing an online course of CBT. To support this assertion the author cites the a trial in the Netherlands in which 63% of patients recovered.

The only indication in the article that there is a conflicting argument is that "activists [...] argue it treats chronic fatigue syndrome as a disease of the mind." Not only is this depiction of the other side of the argument entirely insufficient, but it is also inaccurate. The key contention here is that the evidence supporting such interventions is deeply flawed [1,2,3]. Moreover you give no attention whatsoever to experts with opposing views of this research, of which I can assure you there are many.

If I knew nothing about the subject I would finish that article with the impression that this is likely to be an effective intervention. However the facts have been deeply warped and the space given to opposing views is inaccurate and insufficient.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23669515
[2] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61325-7/fulltext
[3] http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)61324-5/fulltext
 
Back