• Phoenix Rising needs funds to operate: please consider donating to support PR

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

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,356
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

Last edited:

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Likes
28,356

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Likes
8,987
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
Likes
45,652
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
Likes
8,987
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
2,157
Likes
17,718
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
13,802
Likes
37,635
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
Likes
45,652
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
Likes
8,987
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
Likes
5,288
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
Likes
2,873
"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

I told you I was ill
Messages
2,508
Likes
10,446
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.