The Fight is on...Imperial College XMRV Study

[usedtobeperkytina]

I think this will do very well with us. When other studies support the WPI results, then it will become evident that there is a problem in the research and treatment of CFS in the UK.

Tina

 

[Stuart]

Nice take on the UK study from Mary Schweitzer via Co-Cure

Good explaination of the cohort selection problem.

-----Original Message-----
From: ME/CFS and Fibromyalgia Information Exchange Forum [mailto:CO-CURE@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU] On Behalf Of Mary Schweitzer
Sent: Wednesday, January 06, 2010 9:15 PM
To: CO-CURE@LISTSERV.NODAK.EDU
Subject: [CO-CURE] RES: Pay Attention to the Data Set

May Be Reposted:

I have posted a response under the title, "Pay Attention to the Data Set," to the article, "CFS patients in UK show no signs of suspect virus," in New Scientist online:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18341-cfs-patients-in-uk-show-no-signs-of-suspect-virus.html

Pay Attention To The Data Set

Thu Jan 07 04:52:29 GMT 2010 by Mary M. Schweitzer, Ph. D.

There is an old saying in computerized statistics: GIGO. It means garbage in-garbage out - the study is only as good as the data set. In this case, the data set came from patients diagnosed with a version of CFS that is entirely psychiatric. Simon Wessely, one of the co-authors, has stated numerous times that he believes the disease to be a type of neurosis once called "neurasthenia" ("the vapors," a "nervous condition," a "nervous breakdown").

Two more of the seven authors on this study work with Wessely at Kings College, London. Wessely once told a patient with neurally mediated hypotension (suggested as a cause or contributing factor in JAMA, fall 1995) that she could not possibly have CFS because all patients with physically explainable symptoms would have been weeded out before they reached his clinic for diagnosis. Makes for a tautology, then, if there are no physical abnormalities in his patients.

Kings College, London, follows the theory that patients with CFS hold "inappropriate illness beliefs," and they have to re-learn that (1) they are well, through cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT), and (2) they can be reconditioned, through graded exercise therapy (GET) - and then they can happily go back to work and family.

These theories have sent children and even adults to foster care or psychiatric hospitals for the sin of having "chronic fatigue syndrome."

The Kings College picture of CFS can be viewed on their website, at http://www.kcl.ac.uk/projects/cfs/health/

If you are pressed for time, read the section called "Letting go of support," at

http://www.kcl.ac.uk/projects/cfs/health/#Support

The fact of the matter is that patients so diagnosed do not have the disease that was studied at the Whittemore-Peterson Institute. Most likely, they have a form of depression.

A great deal of useful resarch into biomedical markers and viruses has been conducted using the Fukuda definition for CFS (CDC, 1994). Wessely, White, Sharpe, Cleare, Chalder, et al, however, origionally rejected the Fukuda definition, substituting instead a definition that did not include any physical symptoms but allowed depression. The result, not unsurprisingly, is that most of their patients suffer from some form of depression. (Ironically, the jury is still out on whether CBT/GET even helps the depressed patients.)

In this article, however, the researchers claimed to have used the U.S. CDC Fukuda definition. The definition requires six months of debilitating fatigue plus four our of eight possible physical symptoms. If the correct symptoms are chosen, particularly if interpreted more generally, it is possible to make depressed patients look like they fit the Fukuda definition.

Note what happens if you use the following:

- Six months of fatigue

- Headaches

- Sleep abnormalities

- General aches and pains

- Distraction or confusion

Who needs a retrovirus when "CFS" can be so easily "cured"? According to Kings College, "Our routine treatment is cognitive behaviour therapy ... Some individuals receive CBT over the telephone if they live a long way from the unit or find travelling difficult."

The patients who have tested positive for XMRV in the Mikovits et al studies have very different medical histories. Most have other diagnosed medical conditions - including, but not limited to, Coxsackie B, Adenovirus 4, HHV-6 (Variant A), recurring EBV, HHV-7, cytomegalovirus, chlamydia pneumonae, mycoplasma. Many of them have a nonexistent natural killer cell function, a viral antibody truncated in half (the 37kDa Rnase-L), and/or inverted T-cell ratios. Some who have been sick for decades have developed myocarditis, stem cell cancer, Burkett's lymphoma - and of these, too many have already died.

What on earth do the King's College clinic's patients have in common with those of Dan Peterson at Incline Village, NV? Only the name "chronic fatigue syndrome." There is no shared meaning.

For a true evaluation of the XMRV research, it's necessary not only to follow the process precisely, but also to use a comparable data set. This data set has absolutely nothing in common with the one used by the WPI, NCI, and Cleveland.

And that is what is meant by the old saying, GIGO.

Reviewers of research for publication must pay more attention to the data sets being used. The results mean nothing if you are comparing apples to oranges.

It is also well past time that political entities charged with the health and well-being of the public ALSO pay attention to the way research has been constructed, not just the abstract or the final paragraph.

Without consistency, there is no science. Only opinions.

Mary M. Schweitzer, Ph.D.

---------------------------------------------
Send posts to CO-CURE@listserv.nodak.edu
Unsubscribe at http://www.co-cure.org/unsub.htm
Co-Cure Archives: http://listserv.nodak.edu/archives/co-cure.html
---------------------------------------------
Co-Cure's purpose is to provide information from across the spectrum of
opinion concerning medical, research and political aspects of ME/CFS and/or
FMS. We take no position on the validity of any specific scientific or
political opinion expressed in Co-Cure posts, and we urge readers to
research the various opinions available before assuming any one
interpretation is definitive. The Co-Cure website <www.co-cure.org> has a
link to our complete archive of posts as well as articles of central
importance to the issues of our community.
---------------------------------------------

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Flybro,

The article in the Economist is under its Science and Technology section.

The WPI study was reported, in October, not in the UK Times - but in the Financial Times. I think, in October, there was a US financial publication too which covered the WPI study.

Research = pharmaceuticals = $$$$

 

[flybro]

Meagenda should be awarded TOP ADVOCATE STATUS

Cheers Suzy

I was just singing Meagenda praises over on WPI.

Do we know the individuals and companies that will benefit from failure to replicate WPI.

This is obviously a global colaboration.

I wonder what effect on what stocks that these reporst act on.

Wessley reasons for rushing through this study seems very caring, concern over pwme taking antivirals, bless him.

Had the WPIs study effected any stocks he owns, what stocks were effected by the BBC reprting Wessleys study.

It appears he may have probelms in declaring his COIs, I wonder if its because there are just too many to remember.

Are there any market annalisys type bods on the forums, that could track and undersdtand this?

I am sure i watched a female wessley-ite doing a sales pitch to the american markets re CBT.

I vaguely remeber the stats looking a bit fudged to fit.

 

[Eric Johnson from I&I]

Kim and others,
I find it hard to believe that they would be so diaboloical as to weed out every last CFS patient that really meets whatever criteria set one has in mind. Indeed its hard to believe they would even be able to do that, in the unlikely event that they had the overt intention of doing deceptive research in that way.

If there were only 30 patients, I'd say then that maybe there were no CFSers in the sample. Or, had they found 40% of the subjects to be possible, I certainly wouldnt rush to deny the possibility that the other 60% were poorly selected.

But no real CFSers at all, out of a sample of 170, without employing severe dishonesty? Not possible. There have got to be at least 40 "real" ones in there. The only way to get a little bit less than 40 would be to use Reeves' definition, but they didnt do that.

 

[Eric Johnson from I&I]

It is quite true that pharma should be able to make an insane mountain of dough if Lombardi et al is valid. And it is certain that theres been ailing and malaise over the past decade because of the sector's declining productivity. Lot of pessimism, lot of layoffs and mergers aimed at consolidation.

It would surprise me if most of the pharma firms werent looking into this right now -- in the lab, wet. To find out for themselves whether they can believe the paper. They dont have the leisure to wait around if a market like this is going to open. If you want a patent you better file for it before the next guy.The assays here certainly are not particularly complicated or difficult, and pharma has tons and tons of science muscle. Those who have worked for them tell glorious tales of giant rooms, full from wall to wall with sequencing machines, PCR machines, tons of stuff.

In the course of their little science projects, pharma does a lot more biomed research in the USA than NIH does, if I am not mistaken. And we are a lot better off for it, even if pharma has a few peccadillos.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Can you tell what work you are doing that has relevance the Lyme Disease Association email you received?

Hi Stuart,

What I've been doing: for the past twelve months I have been researching the international CISSD Project (undertaken between 2003 - 2007) and the DSM and ICD revision processes, documenting this work on my website and via the Co-Cure mailing list and raising awareness, generally, around the revisions of both these classification systems. The CISSD Project's recommendations have fed into both the DSM and ICD revisions. The CISSD Project and the DSM-V revision of its "Somatoform Disorders" categories has relevance to the so-called "FSSs" and "MUSs". Escobar was a member of the CISSD Project and he is now a member of the DSM-V Task Force and serves as Task Force liaison to the DSM-V "Somatic Distress Disorders" Work Group.

Why I was forwarded this material: I have no connection with Lyme disease, per se, but I was forwarded the Lyme Disease Association advocacy material by a third part for three reasons: because of the "MUS" issue; because of the New Jersey connection and the potential implications for the siting of a proposed centre within an institution which already houses Escobar's "Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS) Research Center"; because of the apparent inclusion of "MCS" within the scope of this proposal for an NEI Center and because the advocacy material appears to promulgate the view that "MCS" is "medically unexplained", which some within the chemical injury (CI) and CS community take issue with.

I would also like to record my own concerns that this Lyme advocacy material uses the term "chronic fatigue" and "CFS" indiscriminately.

I am not aware of the WPI reporting that they have already looked at Lyme samples for any association with XMRV but I have seen material on the net which suggests that some consider XMRV may have relevance for the Lyme community. I considered that the views expressed within this Lyme Disease Association advocacy material (which appears to have the support of a number of US Lyme organisations) could be of interest to those who currently seek or who may seek in the future, support from the US Lyme community in relation to XMRV research or XMRV fundraising, or assistance with campaigning.

I dont want to get into Lyme wars...

Neither do I - it might in any case be beyond the scope of this thread. But since you had mentioned the proposed NJ centre it seemed timely to present this material. My own interest in Lyme Disease does not extend beyond the inclusion by many psychiatrists of chronic Lyme under the umbrella of the so-called "Functional Somatic Syndromes" (which has relevance for the work that I have been doing).

...but I do think there are differences amongst that community, I have no way to qualify their views, but I have seen the film Under Our Skin and have heard from some Lyme patients on this board who feel that all is not known about the disease. Many doctors say chronic Lyme does not exist, it is treated with drugs and goes away the same is said of chronic EBV, they have had many of the same acceptance issues from the medical community.

Yes, I am aware of these issues - we have a similar situation within the UK. It is difficult to get appropriate testing, diagnosis and long-term treatment within the NHS system. There are a number of vocal UK Lyme advocates who have in the last few years promoted the view that in excess of 70% of ME and CFS cases are in reality misdiagnosed/undiagnosed Lyme (or associated) - a view I do not support myself.

The only thing that catches my eye that I take issue with is Pat Smith calling CFS, FM, GWS, and MCS Autoimmune Diseases. These illnesses are not all autoimmune - I suppose someone who gets whiplash in an auto accident and develops FM somehow triggered an autoimmunity??? There are coinfections in both Lyme and CFS, some of these infections in Lyme patients appear to cause very similar neuroendocrine immune symptoms seen in CFS patients. Ticks are a known vector, but there is question if other insects could be a vector as well (spiders, etc.). Sorry, did go off on a Lyme tangent!

I did preface my posting with a caveat:

The content, views and opinions expressed in the material highlighted in blue are those of the author, the President of the Lyme Disease Association Inc., and any queries arising out of the content should be addressed to the author.

I am much more worried by your own submission that the NJ NEI Center may be organized under The Robert Wood Johnson Medical School (RWJMS) - Medically Unexplained Physical Symptoms (MUPS) Center - run by Dr Javier Escobar, MD.

Where is do you find this information, can you cite your source? I found nothing in the New Jersey Assembly Resolution 202 that states that.

I have not said that this proposed centre may be organised under the RWJMS Escobar run MUPS Centre.

What I have done is to draw attention to the fact that within the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) sits the Escobar led NIMH funded Robert Wood Johnson Medical School MUPS Research Center, and to raise awareness of Escobar's views and opinions around the so-called "MUSs".

<snip>

I cant confirm your assertion...

I have made no assertions, Stuart. It is not known whether and to what extent Dr Escobar might have any involvement/influence in any proposed NEI Center.

What I have done is presented the views of a Lyme Disease advocacy group (with a caveat) and drawn attention to the existence within the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (UMDNJ) of the Escobar led, NIMH funded Robert Wood Johnson Medical School MUPS Research Center.

Suzy

 

[Sparklehorse]

I see from one of Holmsey's posts that Prof. Wessely appears to read some of the threads on here. Well, I'd just like to say that it's a FACT that my life has been made a thousand times worse than it needed to have been over the last 20 plus years directly as a result of HIS and his like-minded colleagues actions and work. It is because of you Wessely that a climate of suspicion and mistrust of ME patients exists in the UK. It is because of YOU that the medical profession treats us largely with contempt. It is because of YOU that we have to fight so hard to obtain benefits under the constant implied accusation that we are workshy malingerers. It is beacuse of YOU that so many ME patients have been made to feel in so much despair that they have taken their own lives. It is because of YOU that crass media outlets such as the Daily Mail can run ignorant polls asking ignorant members of the public that have taken their cues from your skewed output to vote on whether ME is a real illness.

So Prof. Wessely, how can having created such a hellish climate for those of us living in the UK, be defended by yourself? Do you feel good about having made people such as myself feel real despair? How are any of your, and your close colleagues, actions any positive help whatsoever?

And for you Holmsey, I don't think that anyone who has ME has any doubt at all that their illness is a physical one. Personally speaking I've considered whether there could be any psychological component in my ME and I can honestly, hand on heart, say that there isn't. I wish there was, because then I'd stand a chance of getting better. Sure anyone with ANY illness can develop psychological problems that may require help, but that's not what Wessely et al say, they say that ME is CAUSED and PERPETUATED by psychological factors. No it isn't, and anyone with ME would know that.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Steady on Flybro...

Woolly dollies don't do financial analysis.

I am sure i watched a female wessley-ite doing a sales pitch to the american markets re CBT.

I imagine that would have been the Prof Rona Moss-Morris video.

Here is UK based Rona Moss Morris selling CBT to the US:

Video of presentation by Prof Rona Moss Morris to School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin.

http://videos.med.wisc.edu/videoInfo.php?videoid=806

Medically Unexplained Symptoms: Medicines Dirty Little Secret

Rona Moss Morris
Professor of Health Psychology, University of Southampton UK

October 2007, 46 minutes

Rona Moss Morris, PhD, describes her program of research to enhance coping with symptoms for individuals with chronic fatigue syndrome and irritable bowel syndrome using a model of self-regulation and cognitive behavioral therapy.


or there is this one:

From the website of the EACLPP (European Association for Consultation Liaison Psychiatry and Psychosomatics)

http://www.eaclpp.org/presentations.html

PowerPoint Presentation:

(PowerPoint Reader required): http://www.eaclpp.org/presentations/Turner Stokes MUS.ppt

Medically Unexplained Symptoms: an approach to rehabilitation

Prof Lynne Turner-Stokes, Herbert Dunhill Chair of Rehabilitation, Kings College London

Slide 6:

Establish a different attitude
Illness can be a social condition
Engenders a caring response
Admiration from peers
Isnt she brave!
Some who has found a prop
Does not necessarily want it removed
Seek medical attention
For confirmation not cure
Diagnosis is an end in itself

Slide 26:

Some patients
Require their medical condition
Part of own strategy for dealing with life
Come to clinic
Not for a cure
For support and bona fide status
Of being under care of the doctor
Remove the crutch
They will find another

Slide 27:

Secondary gain
Disability may hold advantages for them
Financial /Environmental
Benefits, equipment, accommodation
Support, care and attention
From family, friends/carers
Excuse for avoidance
E.g of unwanted sexual attentions
Social mystique or importance
Having a rare condition

 

[Quilp]

I see from one of Holmsey's posts that Prof. Wessely appears to read some of the threads on here. Well, I'd just like to say that it's a FACT that my life has been made a thousand times worse than it needed to have been over the last 20 plus years directly as a result of HIS and his like-minded colleagues actions and work. It is because of you Wessely that a climate of suspicion and mistrust of ME patients exists in the UK. It is because of YOU that the medical profession treats us largely with contempt. It is because of YOU that we have to fight so hard to obtain benefits under the constant implied accusation that we are workshy malingerers. It is beacuse of YOU that so many ME patients have been made to feel in so much despair that they have taken their own lives. It is because of YOU that crass media outlets such as the Daily Mail can run ignorant polls asking ignorant members of the public that have taken their cues from your skewed output to vote on whether ME is a real illness.

So Prof. Wessely, how can having created such a hellish climate for those of us living in the UK, be defended by yourself? Do you feel good about having made people such as myself feel real despair? How are any of your, and your close colleagues, actions any positive help whatsoever?

And for you Holmsey, I don't think that anyone who has ME has any doubt at all that their illness is a physical one. Personally speaking I've considered whether there could be any psychological component in my ME and I can honestly, hand0 on heart, say that there isn't. I wish there was, because then I'd stand a chance of getting better. Sure anyone with ANY illness can develop psychological problems that may require help, but that's not what Wessely et al say, they say that ME is CAUSED and PERPETUATED by psychological factors. No it isn't, and anyone with ME would know that.

I have decided to take a break from these boards, but this post moved me to tears. Sparklehorse that wasn't very good, it was brilliant. You have articulated what so many of us are trying to say. I have copied and printed this post because of the many hundreds i've read in the last few months this is the best. I want to thank you from the bottom of my heart.

Kind regards, Mark
Kind regards, Mark

 

[Min]

I see from one of Holmsey's posts that Prof. Wessely appears to read some of the threads on here. Well, I'd just like to say that it's a FACT that my life has been made a thousand times worse than it needed to have been over the last 20 plus years directly as a result of HIS and his like-minded colleagues actions and work. It is because of you Wessely that a climate of suspicion and mistrust of ME patients exists in the UK. It is because of YOU that the medical profession treats us largely with contempt. It is because of YOU that we have to fight so hard to obtain benefits under the constant implied accusation that we are workshy malingerers. It is beacuse of YOU that so many ME patients have been made to feel in so much despair that they have taken their own lives. It is because of YOU that crass media outlets such as the Daily Mail can run ignorant polls asking ignorant members of the public that have taken their cues from your skewed output to vote on whether ME is a real illness.

So Prof. Wessely, how can having created such a hellish climate for those of us living in the UK, be defended by yourself? Do you feel good about having made people such as myself feel real despair? How are any of your, and your close colleagues, actions any positive help whatsoever?

And for you Holmsey, I don't think that anyone who has ME has any doubt at all that their illness is a physical one. Personally speaking I've considered whether there could be any psychological component in my ME and I can honestly, hand on heart, say that there isn't. I wish there was, because then I'd stand a chance of getting better. Sure anyone with ANY illness can develop psychological problems that may require help, but that's not what Wessely et al say, they say that ME is CAUSED and PERPETUATED by psychological factors. No it isn't, and anyone with ME would know that.

well said Sparklehorse

Let us not forget those who have died from M.E./CFS and its complications, and the many who have committed suicide in despair at the lack of understanding or medical treatment, and those who exist in a living death in darkened rooms unable to talk, walk ,swallow or open their eyse.

In taking the UK taxpayers' funding for research and treatment into our physical illness for nearly three decades, and giving in return only contempt and psychobabble whilst deliberately muddling us up with psychiatric patients, some members of the UK psychiatric profession appear to me to be guilty of incredible evil.

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

Wall Street Journal 7 Jan 10

Wall Street Journal
January 7, 2010

Jacob Goldstein
URL:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/01/07/or-maybe-that-virus-isnt-linked-to-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/


Or maybe that virus isn't linked to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

A few months back, a group of scientists got a lot of attention when
they published a study that suggested a virus called XMRV could be
linked to many cases of chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS.

But as we noted at the time, the study didn't clearly prove a link
between the disease and the virus. Now, in a study published this
week in the journal PLoS One, scientists in the U.K. say they looked
at samples from 186 CFS patients and found no sign of XMRV.

A research institute that was part of the earlier study fired off a
press release that faulted the methods used in the new article,
arguing that the techniques 'not only explain their failure to
replicate' the earlier findings, 'but also render the conclusions
meaningless.' Needless to say, the U.K. scientists defended their
work.

(For more on the technical back-and-forth, see this article from
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/106/1 )

A lot is at stake here, because there's no test to determine
whether someone has CFS; it's diagnosed based on a patient's symptoms,
which the CDC says include six months or more of incapacitating
fatigue, along with other problems. So finding a physiological link
- like a viral infection - would be an important advance.

(c) 2010 Wall Street Journal

 

[alice1]

Thanks ME agenda for posting!

 

[natasa778]

I see from one of Holmsey's posts that Prof. Wessely appears to read some of the threads on here. Well, I'd just like to say that it's a FACT that my life has been made a thousand times worse than it needed to have been over the last 20 plus years directly as a result of HIS and his like-minded colleagues actions and work. It is because of you Wessely that a climate of suspicion and mistrust of ME patients exists in the UK. It is because of YOU that the medical profession treats us largely with contempt. It is because of YOU that we have to fight so hard to obtain benefits under the constant implied accusation that we are workshy malingerers. It is beacuse of YOU that so many ME patients have been made to feel in so much despair that they have taken their own lives. It is because of YOU that crass media outlets such as the Daily Mail can run ignorant polls asking ignorant members of the public that have taken their cues from your skewed output to vote on whether ME is a real illness.

So Prof. Wessely, how can having created such a hellish climate for those of us living in the UK, be defended by yourself? Do you feel good about having made people such as myself feel real despair? How are any of your, and your close colleagues, actions any positive help whatsoever?

And for you Holmsey, I don't think that anyone who has ME has any doubt at all that their illness is a physical one. Personally speaking I've considered whether there could be any psychological component in my ME and I can honestly, hand on heart, say that there isn't. I wish there was, because then I'd stand a chance of getting better. Sure anyone with ANY illness can develop psychological problems that may require help, but that's not what Wessely et al say, they say that ME is CAUSED and PERPETUATED by psychological factors. No it isn't, and anyone with ME would know that.

you should post this as a new thread imo with Personal message to W in the heading

 

[Katie]

Wall Street Journal
January 7, 2010

Jacob Goldstein
URL:
http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2010/01/07/or-maybe-that-virus-isnt-linked-to-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/


Or maybe that virus isn't linked to Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

A few months back, a group of scientists got a lot of attention when
they published a study that suggested a virus called XMRV could be
linked to many cases of chronic fatigue syndrome, or CFS.

But as we noted at the time, the study didn't clearly prove a link
between the disease and the virus. Now, in a study published this
week in the journal PLoS One, scientists in the U.K. say they looked
at samples from 186 CFS patients and found no sign of XMRV.

A research institute that was part of the earlier study fired off a
press release that faulted the methods used in the new article,
arguing that the techniques 'not only explain their failure to
replicate' the earlier findings, 'but also render the conclusions
meaningless.' Needless to say, the U.K. scientists defended their
work.

(For more on the technical back-and-forth, see this article from
http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2010/106/1 )

A lot is at stake here, because there's no test to determine
whether someone has CFS; it's diagnosed based on a patient's symptoms,
which the CDC says include six months or more of incapacitating
fatigue, along with other problems. So finding a physiological link
- like a viral infection - would be an important advance.

(c) 2010 Wall Street Journal

Does anyone know what the response to the WPI press release study was? I'm not sure where to begin to look.

 

[Jenny]

I reported the 'comment' on the LP in the Economist as advertising, and they've deleted it.

Jenny

 

[Marco]

The problem goes a lot further than Wessley unfortunately :

The government last month took its first step on realising a plan for the NHS to employ more counsellors and therapists by launching two pilot cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) centres for people with depression and anxiety in Doncaster, Yorkshire, and Newham, London.

Health economist Lord Richard Layard, credited with providing the idea behind the initiative, is the lead author of a new report on depression which states that 5,000 extra clinical psychologist could be brought into the NHS if the current intake of 550 yearly trainees was expanded temporarily to 800. Other psychologists could be recruited from outside the NHS.

The government's eagerness to follow Lord Layard's advice is largely driven by a desire to slash incapacity benefit payments by finding ways for the 1.3 million people with a mental health problem who claim such benefits to return to work.

Source : Psycminded.co.uk

 

[Advocate]

I reported the 'comment' on the LP in the Economist as advertising, and they've deleted it.

Jenny

Thank you, Jenny!

 

[fresh_eyes]

I read a comment to one of these articles on the Imperial College study (sorry, can't remember where - I've been reading a lot of comments) pointing out that the article didn't address probably the most important fact, that these results mirror the results around XMRV and prostate cancer, ie it was found in the US but not in Europe.

I think this is in our favor. All the poor definitions, cohort problems, etc. aside, that's not the immediate issue at hand. No one can dispute the existence of prostate cancer. For that reason alone, the scientists need to work out whether 1) XMRV is truly not prevalent in Europe, or 2) XMRV is different in Europe such that their tests are not able to detect it, or 3) The European way of testing for XMRV is flawed.

One question that comes immediately to mind - did the Geman prostate cancer study use the same techniques as the Imperial College study? Scientists?

 

[Dx Revision Watch]

The government's eagerness to follow Lord Layard's advice is largely driven by a desire to slash incapacity benefit payments by finding ways for the 1.3 million people with a mental health problem who claim such benefits to return to work.

Source : Psycminded.co.uk

See related at: http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/...g-treatment-to-help-put-britain-back-to-work/

Jobless to be offered ‘talking treatment’ to help put Britain back to work 10 December 09

See also:

BBC News, 7 December 2009

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8396147.stm

Depression targeted in government policy shift

“10-year strategy expected to call for better identification of those most at risk and wider access to psychological therapies for patients.”

and from October:

The Observer's Jamie Doward reported on cutbacks faced by Improving Access to Psychological Therapies (Iapt) programme which is failing to meet government tarkets:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/oct/04/mental-health-therapy-cbt-psychiatry

Flagship mental health scheme faces cutbacks

"Only 400 therapists have been trained out of the 3,600 needed for the scheme"


Additional material

Tories would force jobless to work | Sunday Times | 4 October 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6860233.ece

Cameron to slash benefit payouts to 500,000 now deemed ‘unfit to work’ | Times | 5 October 2009
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6861137.ece

Iapt documents (which include sections on "MUS"): http://www.iapt.nhs.uk/publications/


Lords Debate on CBT

http://meagenda.wordpress.com/2009/03/19/house-of-lords-debate-health-cognitive-therapy-18-march-09/

or

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200809/ldhansrd/text/90318-0012.htm#090318109000236

(Column 316: The Countess of Mar)

Health: Cognitive Therapy Question for Short Debate

8.37 pm Tabled By Baroness Tonge

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to implement cognitive psychotherapy in the National Health Service.