• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Tuller Blog on Comments from NICE's expert reviewers (via FOI request)

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I've just been asked to post these documents up, and it sounds like David Tuller got them via an FOI request, and is planning to publish a blog on them later this afternoon. It looks like it will take a few posts to get everything uploaded, so bear with me!

Looks like there's some annoying stuff in there.

edit: Here is Tuller's blog http://www.virology.ws/2017/09/11/trial-by-error-the-nice-topic-expert-reports/
 

Attachments

  • Topic expert 1 CG53 prioritisation form.pdf
    385.6 KB · Views: 98
  • Topic expert 1 CG53 Questionnaire.pdf
    409 KB · Views: 55
  • Topic expert 2 CG53 prioritisation form.pdf
    386.6 KB · Views: 40
  • Topic expert 2 CG53 Questionnaire.pdf
    467.2 KB · Views: 37
  • Topic expert 3 CG53 Questionnaire.pdf
    462.3 KB · Views: 34
  • Topic expert 3 prioritisation response.pdf
    348.4 KB · Views: 29
  • Topic expert 4 CG53 prioritisation form.pdf
    467.3 KB · Views: 31
  • Topic expert 4 CG53 Questionnaire.pdf
    230.1 KB · Views: 31
Last edited:

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Finished in two posts only!
 

Attachments

  • Topic expert 5 CG53 Questionnaire.pdf
    390.2 KB · Views: 46
  • Topic expert 5 Doc 1.pdf
    934.8 KB · Views: 52
  • Topic expert 5 Doc 2.pdf
    239 KB · Views: 52
  • Topic expert 6 CG53 prioritisation form.pdf
    466.2 KB · Views: 63
  • Topic expert 6 CG53 Questionnaire.pdf
    224.8 KB · Views: 47
  • Topic expert 7 CG53 prioritisation form.pdf
    396.2 KB · Views: 31
  • Topic expert 7 CG53 Questionnaire.pdf
    238.4 KB · Views: 36
  • Topic expert comments on diagnostic criteria.pdf
    610.1 KB · Views: 41

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Tuller's article published: http://www.virology.ws/2017/09/11/trial-by-error-the-nice-topic-expert-reports/

Very concerning about any update of NICE guidelines...

In response to the CFSAC suggestion that it was important to focus on biomarkers and diagnostic tests, #6 wrote this: “In the UK I think we would see what the HHS CFSAC see as a failure to undertake rigorous research, more as a failure of the biological model to explain the condition adequately. However, I can understand that an alternative reaction to the failure of biological models to explain the condition is to try and define a subset of patients with the condition who appear to share a common biomarker. This approach has failed so far.”

Commentator #6 is called "an apparent CBT/GET hardliner" by Tuller
 

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
Commentator #6 is called "an apparent CBT/GET hardliner" by Tuller
Never thought I'd say this, but Tuller is too nice sometimes. Myself, I'd classify #6 as "an idiot with his head firmly wedged within his own posterior" :wide-eyed: I'm not sure how else they could so completely fail to comprehend basic science, the understanding of diseases in general, and the vast amounts of biological ME research.
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Never thought I'd say this, but Tuller is too nice sometimes. Myself, I'd classify #6 as "an idiot with his head firmly wedged within his own posterior" :wide-eyed: I'm not sure how else they could so completely fail to comprehend basic science, the understanding of diseases in general, and the vast amounts of biological ME research.

Reading more from #6:
And here’s what #6, the CBT/GET hardliner, had to say about the U.S.-based reports: “I am suspect [sic] that there is a tendency in the USA to push towards an entirely biological explanation for the condition, whereas in the UK there is an increasing acceptance amongst patients and clinicians alike of a model that includes CFS/ME in the umbrella of functional neurological disorders, i.e. that it is an emotionally driven disorder.”
I'd be tempted to agree with you.
 

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
I got as far as the bit in the first document that said they reviewed all the new evidence since the last review and the only study they though worthy of further consideration and comment by the 'experts' was FITNET. I can't bear to read any more.

WTF.

Compare this with the 3000 studies the US looked at in their review.

I despair.

Good article by Tuller.

Bad news for us in the UK.

NICE is a very very bad joke. I'm not laughing.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
...this comment from #1 jumped out as particularly uninformed: “I am unaware of any concerns about the inclusion criteria of trials in CFS.”

I would have to conclude this comment from number one cannot be genuine unless the person is so clueless they should never have been consulted ... and should never be allowed to treat patients with CFS or ME for that matter.
 

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
I would have to conclude this comment from number one cannot be genuine unless the person is so clueless they should never have been consulted ... and should never be allowed to treat patients with CFS or ME for that matter.
Yes, anyone calling themself an expert, or allowing others to do so, has an ethical duty to know what the hell is going on in their own field. That level of ignorance is an embarrassment to NICE and the NHS.
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Yes, anyone calling themself an expert, or allowing others to do so, has an ethical duty to know what the hell is going on in their own field. That level of ignorance is an embarrassment to NICE and the NHS.

Yes, either this commentator is not aware of the controversy, and this person can hardly be considered an expert

Or this person is purposely denying a controversy exists in a wesselian manner (move along, nothing to see here) and this is truly dishonest.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
I would have to conclude this comment from number one cannot be genuine unless the person is so clueless they should never have been consulted ... and should never be allowed to treat patients with CFS or ME for that matter.

This raises an interesting question to which someone may know the answer.

An express comment such as that should automatically exclude someone from being consulted as an expert. If NICE nevertheless consider and take into account his/her views do they remain compliant with their regulatory duties? Presumably they cannot select experts on a whim and will have a protocol to follow. Is that protocol in the public domain?
 

Binkie4

Senior Member
Messages
644
"The questionnaires, which were often only partially filled out, were sent to me as separate documents." (david Tuller)

I was struck by the fact that the topic experts did not complete the task set, and that Nice seems to have waved this by.
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
And here’s what #6, the CBT/GET hardliner, had to say about the U.S.-based reports: “I am suspect [sic] that there is a tendency in the USA to push towards an entirely biological explanation for the condition, whereas in the UK there is an increasing acceptance amongst patients and clinicians alike of a model that includes CFS/ME in the umbrella of functional neurological disorders, i.e. that it is an emotionally driven disorder.”

Nicely spun, huh? "... increasing acceptance", implying delusion across the pond. They just can't help themselves.
 
Back