Due to all the formatting in this article I have posted it directly to my website
so that the formatting is retained in full.
You can read the article as it was meant to be written by clicking on the link
I have been asked that if it is reposted that it should be reposted with all the
formatting as it has been written. Otherwise I would appreciate it if this e.mail
were reposted in full and as it is - in HTML format.
Some people may ask after reading this article by Margaret Williams - "Why
is this important"?
Well, it is important for the ME community to know that the MRC will be using
the "London" criteria as if it had been formally operationalised and
published and that this criteria is of valid scientific worth.
As you will read, this is as far from the case as is possible and as Margaret
Williams says at the end of her article...
"In conclusion, it is submitted that currently, the “London”
criteria have no justifiable or validated legitimacy that would in any way provide
acceptable criteria for use by the MRC or by any other research bodies for use
in identifying patients with ME/ICD-CFS. Not only are they now at least eleven
years old, they have been superseded by the more robust and superior Canadian
case definition (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Working
Case Definition, Diagnostic and Treatment Protocols. Bruce M Carruthers et al.
JCFS 2003:11: (1): 7-115)."
This is why this article needed to be written and this is why it needs to be read.
In my view the Medical Research Council are hoping that by utilising the "London"
criteria they will be pacifying those who are quite rightly criticising the PACE
and FINE trials.
It is clear to me and to others that the MRC has no interests in pursuing solid
Science - only pursuing an agenda to please those in Psychiatry who are currently
providing the cheapest and dirtiest "solution" to the "problem"
of what they refer to generically on one hand as "CFS/ME" and on the
other hand to a different audience as a Functional Psychosomatic Syndrome.
In truth, the MRC have given millions to pursue an unscientific agenda of herding
a heterogeneous patient group into one somatoform obsessed clinical speciality
at the exclusion of all other actively interested clinical specialities using
an imprecise inclusion criteria that they know full well is no longer respected
To try and placate the critics they have conceded that after the dirty work has
been done they now need to use the "London" criteria as if it holds
the weight of other published and operationalised criteria when in fact the London
criteria does not. In fact it is of little or no contemporary scientific value
It is very clear that the outcome of the PACE and FINE trials will have been a
pseudo-scientific stitch-up in favour of those pursuing lucrative careers in somatoform
psychiatry and it is clear that the research outcomes of these trials will be
as full of scientific flaws as were all the other studies on generic "Chronic
Fatigue" undertaken prior to the Chief Medical Officers' Working Group by
the very same psychiatrists undertaking the current studies.
And after yet more years have passed, the MRC will have successfully prevented
other areas of medical science from confirming they widely recognised facts that
when it comes to ICD10 G93.3 Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, the somatoform psychiatrists
are fundamentally wrong. Meanwhile the "fatigue" clinics will not be
addressing the actual medical needs of people with ICD10 G93.3 Myalgic Encephalomyelitis
- instead they will be fiddling with ME patients - testing them with nothing other
than psychological interventions that do not address the underlying biomedical
abnormalities in people with ICD10 G93.3 Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
And it matters not that the use of CBT to coerce a patient with ME into a course
of graded exercise (no matter how "carefully" applied) could actually
be fundamentally useless and detrimental to the health of those patients who have,
are and will suffer at the hands of these somatoform obsessed psychiatrists who
do not accept or believe that ICD10 G93.3 Myalgic Encephalomyelitis actually exists
Yet this is what the ME community is being told by Action for ME and the ME Association
to be "real progress".
We are being told that we should all embrace this and that we should all pull
together and stop complaining.
What utter rubbish.
We have every right to complain and to carry on stating the scientific facts.
Stephen Ralph DCR(R) Retired