Following suggestions from visitors to the website, this page has been set up to allow me to give details of items about M.E. and related issues, as well as other subjects, that will hopefully be of interest to those who visit the site. Do let me know what you think!
ME/CFS: Frontiers in research, clinical practice and perception
ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE
ME/CFS: Frontiers in research, clinical practice and perception.
THE POLITICS OF ME/CFS.
Ladies and gentlemen, I am grateful to the Royal Society of Medicine who have given me the opportunity to offer a political view of ME/CFS.
I will have been an Independent Crossbench member of the House of Lords for forty years in the autumn. For more than twenty of those years, with the help of a great many other people in the community, I have been trying to persuade governments of different colours that ME/CFS, together with organophosphate sheep dip poisoning, Gulf War Illnesses, Aerotoxic syndrome and other medically unexplained physical symptoms, known as MUPS, are not figments of patients’ imaginations, nor are they nocebo effects, but are very real conditions.
In so far as ME/CFS is concerned I have had some support fromMembers of Parliament who have constituents with the illness, but have been ploughing rather a long and lonely furrow in the Lords. For the sake of brevity, I will call the condition ME, which is what most patients prefer, except where accuracy demands otherwise. I know that the medical profession uses the shortcut term CFS, but that covers a much wider range of conditions that what I know of as classic ME.
I came to ME through parents who had used OP head louse shampoos on their children – treatments recommended by doctors and school nurses. Some children developed symptoms which were labelled ME within months of the treatment. I don’t know whether you recall that the advice was to shampoo the child’s head and, without rinsing, cover the head with a shower cap and leave overnight, to be rinsed off in the morning. Anyone with any knowledge of OPs knows that one of the most absorbent parts of the body is the scalp, and that some individuals are more genetically susceptible than others; so these poor children were poisoned.
Very unfortunately, once a person, be they child or adult, has the ME label all support and assistance from the medical profession and social services seem to vanish into thin air. Despite the World Health Organisation classification of CFS/ME as a neurological condition under ICD 10G93.3 and this classification being accepted by Ministers of both the Department of Health and the Department for Work and Pensions; despite major reports, one by the Chief Medical Officers working group on CFS/ME in 2002 and two others by the All Party Parliamentary Group on ME in 2006 and 2010, all of which recognise the severe impact that this disease can have on many patients’ lives, far too many of those professionals treating and caring for people with ME have not received the message. The CMO Report mentions that “The disbelief and controversy over CFS/ME that exists within the professions has done nothing to dispel public disbelief in the existence of such a seemingly varied and inconsistent illness.” Despite all the fine words of Ministers and report writers, I repeatedly ask myself why it is that the recognition and treatment of this illness has remained in the doldrums for so long.
All Party Parliamentary Groups are supposed to be for the enlightenment of Members of Parliament from both Houses. The purpose of the APPG for ME is to: “Raise awareness of ME and support the improvement of health, social care, education and employment opportunities for people affected by ME.” There was a problem with communicating with Ministers effectively at what turned out to be large public meetings with few MPs present. After consultation with the leaders of the main ME charities and support groups, Forward-ME was formed in 2008 under my chairmanship. We have met successfully with people such as Steven Holgate, Lord Freud, Edward Timpson MP and ATOS as well as others in the health, social care and education world and are, I believe, respected for the respect that we show to each other and to our speakers. The APPG was re-formed in 2010 on these same principles and we now work together very happily, though meetings are still attended by very few MPs.
When we think of politics we tend to think of party politics– what goes on in the Westminster village, in local government or at the parish pump. It was a while before I recognised that amongst other settings there are medical politics. Until the 1980s, when the Press picked up on the ‘Yuppie flu’ diagnosis, there seems to have been tacit acceptance that ME was a real physical condition even though the cause was then, as it is now, unknown. There were a number on notable British doctors, amongst them Dr A Melvin Ramsay, who flew the flag for Myalgic Encephalomyelitis from the 1950s onwards, Dr Elizabeth Dowsett, Dr Alan Franklin and Dr John Richardson who, from their observations of ME patients over decades, were convinced that ME was caused by persistent viral infections. This persistence would appear to be confirmed by Dr Mady Hornig and Dr Ian Lipkin at the Centre for Infection and Immunity at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health in their 27 February 2015paper – ‘Immune Signatures in Blood Point to Distinct Disease Stages, Open Door to Better Diagnosis and Treatment’, who have identified distinct immune changes in patients, said to represent the first robust physical evidence the ME/CFS is a biological illness as opposed to a psychological disorder., though I readily acknowledge that we still have a long way to go.
It was when a small group psychiatrists from the UK, Europe and the USA purloined ME and renamed it CFS in the mid-1980s that the real problems began. They insisted that it was a psychosocial behavioural problem that could be readily overcome with a course of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise. From their earliest beginnings, they managed to attract the attention of the media and of their medical colleagues with their assertions. They found their way onto government advisory committees and research organisations; onto the boards of medical publications and into insurance companies where their message was greeted with apparent delight because these organisations would not have to think any more. The cause and solution were at hand. No need for doctors to do too many investigations; no need to perform anything but psychological research; no need for social security payments by finding that claimants are really fit for work. They developed a means of stifling opposition by refusing to publish papers showing biological causation and, joy of joys for the insurance companies found that patients were reporting a psychological condition which was excluded in their policies. As recently as last year CFS was described as ‘a culturally driven disorder with no known organic cause’ in the BMJ.
This school of psychiatrists has persisted in their view despite more than 6,000 peer reviewed papers, including experimental studies which demonstrate a range of biological findings associated with people with ME. Funding for biological causes and treatments is miniscule against the funding for psychiatric or psychological ones. Researchers such as those funded by Invest in ME and ME Research UK, have funded excellent pilot and seedcorn studies on a shoestring, while a significant number of biomedical research applications have not been funded by the MRC in the past 20 years, including some targeted at pathophysiology. It is hard to believe that all were written so badly that they could be rejected, particularly as some came from established researchers with a track record in this and other fields. Could it be that the expert reviewers were, once again, psychiatrists who appeared to have an interest in supressing research that counters their views? Many suspect this to be the case. This can only be political. It is also political suicide for researchers in major universities to suggest that they conduct studies into biological causes for ME.
The largest and most expensive state-sponsored treatment studies (the PACE and FINE trials) which both focused exclusively on psychosocial management cost in excess of £6 million, dwarfing funding for biomedical intervention, yet both failed to show improvement on real-world outcome measures. These huge sums have taken us no nearer to finding a cure or the underlying cause.
There is a silver lining – more recently MRC funding has been targeted on more biological research, though the amounts of funding allocated are still miniscule in relation to that for other diseases.
It is extraordinary to me that men and women who are trained to “First do no harm” and to “Listen to the patient for they will probably tell you the diagnosis” cannot but be aware of the enormous damage they are doing to a very large number – more than 200.000, patients with this condition. By recommending that too many investigations should not be conducted because they encourage illness behaviour they are risking missing vital findings of treatable conditions such as endocrine dysfunction, rarer medical conditions or even cancers that present with chronic fatigue. How, with all the publicity, can they not be aware of the misery, neglect and, too often, abusive treatment that I can only describe as barbaric that is meted out to patients with a diagnosis of ME?
I am aware that multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s disease and diabetes were all once in the domain of the psychiatrists and that this domain is shrinking as new discoveries are made. To compensate, we have a compendium of purely subjective conditions with labels such as conversion syndrome, pervasive refusal syndrome, and neurasthenia to name but a few. There is no biological explanation for these, but they do help the uninitiated to believe that the condition is psychological.
How can we change this situation? Frantz Fanon, the French psychiatrist, philosopher and revolutionary from the middle of the last century wrote:
“Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted.
It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance.
And because it is so important to protect that core belief, they will rationalise, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit that core belief.”
Ladies and gentlemen, I know how very difficult it is to say “Sorry, I got it wrong”, especially when your whole career has been based on a particular belief. I have been told that, in medicine, nothing will change until the old guard moves on. The history of medicine is littered with instances of this phenomenon. It is my very sincere wish that the situation will change radically long before the changing of the guard.
Since my last blogpost on the stages of ME, some of you have raised questions about cases that sadly don't ever seem to go into remission, or improve enough for people to enjoy a reasonable quality of life. That's what I am addressing here, grounded both in my own experience and in the knowledge of others. It is part of the spectrum of this disease, and we need to see the whole picture.
I first met microbiologist and ME specialist Dr Elizabeth Dowsett in 1985 when she diagnosed me with ME. Shortly afterwards, she telephoned with the news that my blood tests had revealed a recent infection and several weeks after that, other tests, being analysed as part of a research procedure, showed that the causal agent was the enterovirus (or gut virus) Coxsackie B. In ME, it often is, as she explained. Coxsackie viruses are related to polioviruses, being part of the same family.
What I didn't know at the time – do any of us? - was that mine would develop into almost the worst case of ME that Dr Dowsett had ever seen. I won't attempt to describe that here, although I do intend to publish a personal memoir to convey something of the dramatic severity and trauma associated with that level of disease.
When, years later, I came to interview Dr Dowsett, after a painful endurance test while my body struggled to repair itself, she made clear to me that whilst the body will do its best for us, sometimes it just can't get the job done.
If she was right about the persistence of virus in our tissues (and I have no reason to think she wasn't, given Dr John Chia's discoveries of viral particles persisting many years later in the stomach lining of patients) then we never truly 'recover' in the pure terms of totally eliminating the invading organism. But that happens with other organisms too, such as the herpes virus that causes some people to get recurrent cold sores when they are run down. Most of the time it doesn't bother them. This is a way that the body has learned to accommodate invaders rather than always mounting a deadly battle.
Some people who have been through ME seem to reach periods in their lives when they joyfully find themselves capable of physical things they thought they wouldn't be able to do again. After the worst years, some of us find other, gentler, physical things to replace those we can no longer manage. Can we call any of this 'recovery'? It's an odd word, as people use it in their own way, and even researchers have to define what they mean by recovery, which might not be what we would mean.
I have limitations that have never totally gone, and I live my life around certain restrictions. The R word is bandied around too loosely, but if by 'recover' we mean that we are totally 'over it' forever, then that idea does not seem to be reflected in what happens inside the body. What can happen is an accommodation with the virus that caused the ME in the first place, a sort of equilibrium. This balance, however, can be upset, and indeed, is apparently not reached in every case.
If you haven't read my previous blog post IT'S THE IMMUNE SYSTEM, RIGHT? I would prefer that you read it now, before continuing with this one. It's not all that long. Just scroll down and look through it. Because the next few paragraphs are a bit scary, and if you're feeling upset, miserable or frightened because of what's happening to your body, it's a good idea to reassure yourself by learning how the 'tendency' in ME (as explained to me by Dr Dowsett) is for the body to improve over time as it tries to do what it's programmed to do – heal us. Often this happens in spite of, rather than because of, any therapies or medications or alternative treatments that others recommend.
The body has been injured, damaged. We must look after it, love it, praise it and trust it to do its very best. We must take good care of ourselves and not let people pressurize us into doing things that will interfere with that healing process.
The last thing we want is to provoke a deterioration, even as we naturally try new things when they seem possible. Keeping a balance is important. As I've personally experienced, once a serious setback has happened, it can be a long haul to get back to our previous level of improvement. And we don't even know if we'll get there; uncertainty is perhaps the worst thing of all. What will my future be? We must give it our best shot.
Go off now and read my previous blogpost...
Welcome back. I hope you found that information encouraging. We must, however, validate the experience of those who do not 'recover', for no fault of their own. And we must not hide away the unpalatable truth, that some people suffer continually in darkened rooms unseen by the world. As the Chief Medical Officer's Working Group Report stated in 2002: Overall, there is wide variation in the duration of the illness, with some people recovering [that word again] in less than two years, while others remain ill after several decades. A minority of those with CFS/ME remain permanently severely disabled and dependent on others.
That is a sobering statement. Dr Melvin Ramsay wrote of the spectrum of cases, including one case that had at the time of writing lasted 40 years. He stated: I am fully satisfied that at a conservative estimate 25% of victims of ME have had the disease for 10 years or more. Only Myalgic Encephalomyelitis has such a legacy.
Ramsay was comparing the real, classic, historic ME with other forms of postviral syndrome. Dr Chia's 21 century work corroborates what Ramsay documented, showing double stranded enteroviral RNA present in the stomach lining of patients after 10 years. He is quite adamant that this is a causal relationship, with the level of symptoms reflecting the degree of what I would call infestation.
Ramsay describes two forms of chronic ME. One form shows a recurring cycle of remission and relapse, with remissions lasting as long as three years in his experience. The second form is more tragic in that no remission occurs. He talks of the restricted lifestyle of these patients, and adds: A few of these chronic cases are compelled to sleep upright as a result of permanent weakness of the intercostal and abdominal recti musculature.
I myself find it more comfortable not to lie totally flat when sleeping, and this is a fascinating analysis of why that might be. Despite the persisting weakness in some of my muscles, I am constantly amazed at what my body has managed to achieve. But I try not to take it for granted.
What have others had to say? In a paper published in 1994 by the Nightingale Foundation in Canada, Byron Hyde MD and his colleagues reported that out of 1826 respondents to their survey, the average length of illness was approximately seven years. They found only a two per cent recovery, which, they said, 'suggests that the large number of pharmaceuticals, alternative medicines and various treatments used' had been 'largely ineffective'. We are now 21 years on from that statement, and if anything, we are in a worse situation, with exercise regimes and psychological therapy having provided one huge distraction. We see muddled terminology, mixing of patient groups under the banner of 'CFS', and often misguided treatment. I particularly see this in regular reports from parents stating that their children have been made worse.
In my view, until both the research establishment and Government truly accept the viral nature of this illness, and do something about developing targeted antivirals, and vaccinations, as they have done in other serious disease, it will continue to be down to us as individuals and families to resist over-demand and to insist on taking the very best care of ourselves in order to maximise our chances of 'recovery'.
In my book, I am revisiting my interview with Dr Dowsett and her work. She goes into some detail about the dangers of ignoring the true nature of ME, and what that can lead to.Which is not nice. Not nice at all.
ME has to be taken seriously. That's why I continue to shout about it. To anyone who will listen.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) is an unexplained incapacitating illness that may affect up to 4 million people in the United States alone. There are no validated laboratory tests for diagnosis or management despite global efforts to find biomarkers of disease. We considered the possibility that inability to identify such biomarkers reflected variations in diagnostic criteria and laboratory methods as well as the timing of sample collection during the course of the illness. Accordingly, we leveraged two large, multicenter cohort studies of ME/CFS to assess the relationship of immune signatures with diagnosis, illness duration, and other clinical variables. Controls were frequency-matched on key variables known to affect immune status, including season of sampling and geographic site, in addition to age and sex. We report here distinct alterations in plasma immune signatures early in the course of ME/CFS (n = 52) relative to healthy controls (n = 348) that are not present in subjects with longer duration of illness (n = 246). Analyses based on disease duration revealed that early ME/CFS cases had a prominent activation of both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines as well as dissociation of intercytokine regulatory networks. We found a stronger correlation of cytokine alterations with illness duration than with measures of illness severity, suggesting that the immunopathology of ME/CFS is not static. These findings have critical implications for discovery of interventional strategies and early diagnosis of ME/CFS.
(To read the whole article, click on the link above. A PDF version can be downloaded by clicking here.)
Yesterday saw some positive media headlines for the ME community. The research from Columbia University by Hornig et al, concerning the level of cytokine activation as a potential biomarker for ME, looks promising. ME research indicating a biological pathology is often dismissed due to the small number of participants but this was a study comprising 298 ME patients and 348 controls, which will hopefully give it more weight in scientific circles. Unfortunately, as is usual with UK media coverage, reporting was not unequivocally positive; the difference in tone between the UK and US media coverage was marked. In the former, most of the usual suspects promoting the psychogenic paradigm were quoted, aided by the Science Media Centre (SMC). There is little hope of this group of psychiatrists going quietly into the night and we will probably experience a backlash from that quarter; they have much to lose if and when the psychogenic model of ME is discredited and the disease is proven to have a biological foundation.
Regarding specific coverage: ‘First Biological Proof that ME is Real Found by Scientists’ states the Telegraph’s headline. Hardly the first given the thousands of papers published showing biological abnormalities in ME patients, and proof is a charged term in science but quite a good headline for a British newspaper (to be fair the ME Association’s reporting was hardly exemplary). The Independent lives up to its usual poor standards when reporting anything ME related; its headline, ‘Scientists Claim to have ‘Robust’ Evidence that ME has a Biological Cause', being especially bad. Note the use of the word claim and the inverted commas around robust and contrast this with their reporting of the PACE trial based research a few weeks ago, ‘Sufferers of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome can Benefit from Exercise'. No doubt is expressed there in the veracity of the researchers’ claims, the suggestion that ME sufferers can benefit from exercise is stated as fact.
The Science Media Centre surpassed itself in its coverage of the Columbia University study. Of seven experts chosen to respond to the study, not one gives a positive analysis, no medical adviser from an ME charity or, non-psychosomatic promoting, ME researcher is quoted. The featured experts are:
Professors Michael Sharpe and Peter White, and Dr Esther Crawley, all notorious proponents of the psychogenic ME model
Professor Stephen Lawrie, head of The Division of Psychiatry at the University of Edinburgh: ‘This is a small study’ he states; a study encompassing 20 participants is small professor Lawrie, one involving over 600 participants is not. One has to ask why is a psychiatrist being consulted?
Professor Derek Hill, a professor of Medical Imaging Science with no known expertise in the field of ME
Professor Naveed Sattar: Professor of Metabolic Medicine at the University of Glasgow. He does have expertise in the field of biomarkers but has shown zero interest in the field of ME research heretofore
Dr Diana Prata: Group Leader, Institute of Molecular Medicine. Again, no evidence of any interest in the field of ME research ‘This specific illness is not in my area of expertise’ really? Yet the SMC calls you an expert.
If the SMC wanted to skew their response towards dismissing the Columbia study and avoid undermining their preferred psychogenic model of ME it would be hard to choose better sources of expertise. The study is by no means flawless or conclusive (what study is?) but it’s a better piece of work than the SMC would lead you to believe. Connie St Louis, former president of the Association of British Science Writers and a senior lecturer at City University, has detailed the SMC’s malign influence on media reporting of scientific stories in the UK, revealing that over half of the SMC’s expert reactions were covered in the press and in nearly a quarter of stories, the only quotes were from the SMC. Louis states ‘The SMC never claims to deliver a balanced [argument], so it’s really interesting that many of them weren’t using somebody independent of what the SMC offered’. The SMC’s media briefings are reported uncritically, with 60 per cent of articles based on their information containing no non-SMC mediated sources. This is especially relevant concerning ME coverage in the British media and explains its bias towards reporting research from the psychogenic realm.
We recently published a blog post concerning a vitriolic article about ME sufferers from the University of Toronto’s Professor Edward Shorter. One of the particularly insightful claims made in his piece was,
‘There have been no convincing new studies, no breakthrough findings of organicity, nothing.
And there never will be.'
I’m not quite sure why he split the sentence up, no doubt to enhance the effect of such a momentous, nay paradigm-shifting statement, but it looks more foolish now than it did a week ago, which is quite an achievement. Needless to say Professor Shorter’s scientific knowledge is zero, I’m only surprised the SMC didn’t choose him as one of their expert commentators on the Columbia study.
A serious point to finish: let us not forget Karina Hansen, currently being ‘treated’ by Per Fink and his followers in Denmark. I believe forcibly removing a young woman from her home to an institution that restricts her liberty, access to her family and subjects her to who knows what form of ‘therapy’, is nothing less than torture. I also find it disturbing that it is another case of a young woman being abused by middle-aged male members of the medical profession. The current climate surrounding ME, ‘all in the mind’, ‘lazy malingerers’ etc. encouraged by the likes of Wessely, White and Sharpe (and formerly by Beard at al), has allowed such cruelties to be inflicted on ME patients. Hopefully we are coming to the end of this era of abuse and can look forward to more biomedical research and effective medical therapy, consigning the over-used biosocial model and psychogenic explanations for physical illness to the dustbin of history.
Not many people will have missed the hoohah about SEID - Systemic Exertion Intolerance Disease - as a proposed new name for ME/CFS. You'll be relieved to hear, this is not going to be a dissection of the IOM report. That's not what I'm writing about.
I'm going to write about ME, and about why, no matter how many names people come up with for the composite 'CFS', ME itself remains what it always was. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Well defined by Melvin Ramsay back in the 20 Century. A discrete disease, and not exactly what we would call “benign” (a prefix that was originally attached).
It's six months since I posted here on my Stripeysocks blog (as you see, I've broadened my remit to include Spotty Socks when available... ). Thanks for the messages asking me to post again. The reason I was away was simple. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. As those of you with ME will know, even if you're much recovered, the chances are that you still have to pace yourself. So do I. 2014 was Tymes Trust's 25 Anniversary Year. That was demanding so much of my energy and time that something had to give. It's good to be back.
Sitting beside me is a copy of Melvin Ramsay's monograph: The Clinical Identity Of The Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Syndrome (second edition). If only the medical establishment had properly adopted his clear description of ME back then, we might never have suffered the indignity and nonsense that is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, nor rushed willy nilly down that blind alley. “It is fortunate,” he writes, “that a second edition of my monograph affords me the opportunity to demonstrate that the clinical features of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis provide a sharp contrast to all other forms of postviral fatigue syndrome.”
So there you have it. A “sharp contrast” to ALL other forms of postviral fatigue syndrome.
Anything that does not display the clearly defined features of what I have myself referred to as “classic” ME (I'm glad to see how popular that adjective has become) is simply not ME. It is something else, and deserves to be properly diagnosed in its own right.
All this muddled thinking that CFS has engendered has led to patients with genuine ME getting mixed with patients who have something else. No illness can be accurately diagnosed while all are labelled CFS - or worse, chronic fatigue, a symptom of multiple diseases. Many of you will know that I've written about this issue since the 1990s. It can't be repeated too often. People have been short-changed, fobbed off, and some even put in serious danger by being given inappropriate therapies, or having what was cancer labelled as fatigue.
Here is what Melvin Ramsay wrote. It could hardly be clearer.
The clinical identity of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis syndrome rests on three distinct features, namely:
A. A unique form of muscle fatiguability whereby, even after a minor degree of physical effort, 3,4,5 days or longer elapse before full muscle power is restored.
B. Variability and fluctuation of both symptoms and physical findings in the course of a day. And,
C. An alarming tendency to become chronic.
He goes on to contrast this with flu. “If we take the well known condition of post influenzal debility as an example of a postviral fatigue state we see that in all these particulars it constitutes a complete contrast. The fatigue of post influenzal debility is part of a general debility with no distinguishing characteristic of its own, it shows no variation in intensity in the course of a day and although it may last weeks or even many months, it has no tendency to become chronic.”
Once you mix different forms of postviral fatigue together you end up with doctors who can't understand why a child diagnosed with CFS can be severely ill for years. They make extraordinary statements like “You've been ill for too long,” and call in psychiatrists and social workers to probe the family and the child's mental state. They may be accustomed to seeing more common types of postviral debility, quite likely under the label of chronic fatigue, and simply don't know that in with those there will be cases of the 'real thing', the genuine article, ME in all its variability, potential severity and chronicity (duration of illness).
On chronicity, Melvin Ramsay writes of the “alarming tendency” of ME to become chronic. This is “the final distinguishing feature from all other forms of postviral fatigue syndrome”.
At the time of writing, he knew of people who had suffered with ME for over forty years. He states, unequivocally: “I am fully satisfied that at a conservative estimate 25% of victims of M.E. have had the disease for 10 years or more. Only Myalgic Encephalomyelitis has such a legacy.” Finally, he comments on the “recurring cycle of remission and relapse”, and on “tragic” cases that do not remit.
Given these sobering facts, it must surely be obvious to anyone, lay or medical, that we must allow children with ME, and adults too, to convalesce and recuperate in a genuinely conservative manner that supports the body's own healing mechanisms. The last thing we should be doing is pushing the body before it has healed enough to do what is being demanded.
I said I wouldn't write about SEID but I will say this: to be diagnosed with SEID, the patient must exhibit an intolerance to effort. That in itself narrows things down. If the definition requires that effort makes the patient worse, we're coming closer to ME itself. The IOM committee quite rightly panned the term 'fatigue' and also replaced 'syndrome' with 'disease'. SEID might fly as a replacement for the hated 'CFS', but it's still not classic ME. Both I and Tymes Trust will continue to refer to ME to distinguish it from other diseases.
I don't think I'm breaking a confidence to say that I'm expecting some new evidence of the type of neurological damage caused by inflammation in ME to become available during 2015. Given that the IOM committee will review in five years, by which time there may be more revelations, I find it very unlikely that there won't be - even in their opinion - sufficient evidence of inflammation for them to agree: Myalgic Encephalomyelitis ('itis' meaning inflammation) was an appropriate name all along.
Footnote: Those of you who've been reading the episodes of my book will know that it's the close relation between ME and polio that I focus on there.
The IOM recently published its report into ME and has renamed the illness to Systemic Exertional Intolerance Syndrome (SEID). This will be a controversial decision and will encounter considerable opposition from patients and doctors. Let us look carefully at the facts.
The name itself tells us nothing about the illness as many illnesses including Cancers and MS cause substantial “exertional intolerance”. Yet these illnesses do not have “exertional intolerance” in their name. The report accepts the illness as a serious biological illness but fails to accept this and quantify this in its diagnostic criteria. Unfortunately the new IOM criteria uses most of the same criteria used in the Fukuda criteria of 1994.
It uses a substantial reduction in physical activity and profound fatigue lasting for more than 6 months unrefreshing sleep and cognitive impairment. The addition of Orthostatic Intolerance being the only new addition to the criteria. What about the immune system abnormalities? the mitochondria abnormalities? the neurological abnormalities? the HPA axis abnormalities? the infections consistently found? the cardiac abnormalities? the genetic abnormalities? the gastrointestinal and microbiome abnormalities? These important biological factors were omitted, left out.
The IOM diagnostic criteria is far too vague, loose unclear and ambiguous. The IOM criteria cannot diagnose or treat any illness. The IOM criteria advises doctors not to carry out intensive biological tests to decipher the illness factors in the patient. This is extraordinary, as medicine and science is about identifying and establishing facts and not about making assumptions and presumptions regarding fatigue for 6 months or more.
The new IOM criteria does not deconstruct this complex multi-system illness illness into it’s constituent parts so as to diagnose and treat with precision. This means that patients will not get a proper of diagnosis of ME / CFS or SEID and thus they will not get proper treatments.
Millions of patients will continue to be left in a limbo and many of these will continue to be vulnerable to premature deaths as a result. The following list is a sobering reminder of what happened in the past when vague, ambiguous, unclear and loose criteria were used to diagnose the illness - http://www.ncf-net.org/memorial.htm
In addition the IOM criteria includes co-mormid illnesses in the diagnosis of SEID, and Depression and mental illness are included. This means many of those people with Depression and other mental illness will qualify for a diagnosis of SEID or ME / CFS. This will add these patients to the mix of SEID and ME/CFS patients and this will confuse doctors and researchers, and cause inconsistent research findings and further confuse the research field and the meta analysis of papers. It’s a disaster. It is this inability to accept well known biological makers for the immune system, mitochondria, neurological system, HPA axis, heart etc. which condemns doctors, researchers and civil servants to continue to repeating the same mistakes over and over again, while patients suffer, become more frustrated, and die.
The malign influence of some London psychiatrists continues in the field of ME / CFS and this is evident in the new IOM criteria. The emphasis on fatigue and exertion intolerance and the omission of biological markers proves this point. The excessive research monies wasted by the NIH and British government and other EU governments on CBT, GET and other psychiatric nonsense has robbed the field of quality research into biological factors for over 20 years. Yet despite these setbacks, there are many high quality research papers proving consistent biological makers in the illness.
There are some known biomarkers for the illness – http://www.me-ireland.com/ - Biomarkers - and some forward thinking medical clinics which use these and diagnose and treat the illness - http://www.me-ireland.com/ - Diagnosis and Treatment . The Norwegian government feels that the immune system abnormalities are important and is continuing to fund research into the use of Rituximab in ME / CFS and this should produce some results by the end of 2015. The Open Medicine Institute (OMI) is continuing to fund raise for high tech research into ME /CFS combining immune system, neurological system, gastrointestinal, genetic and endocrine factors in a large research project. This will produce some findings by the end of 2015. The Rituximab and Microbiome projects in Britain are due to begin soon. Also Dr. Lipkin’s microbiome study is to begin in the near future. These provide realistic hope in terms of identifying all biological markers for the illness.
The fine art of deconstructing complex, multi-faceted systems / illnesses into their component parts and understanding their nature and their dynamics and linkages with each other has been lost. The old educational style which focussed on the Trivium form of learning has been replaced with new types of education emphasising superficial analysis and learning, and hasty, inadequate solutions. The quick analysis, the superficial diagnosis, the speedy dismissal, the soundbite, the inability to listen carefully and to investigate, the shallowness of assumptions and presumptions, the lack of depth, the lack of curiosity, the lack of deeper facts and meaning, the lack of clarity are all too common today. This is blocking scientific and medical progress and condemning many people to mediocrity, low quality and failure, and is causing great suffering and frustration for many people worldwide.
With the latest media splurge reading like an advertisement for Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy as the answer to ME, families facing child protection investigations must have been reeling in horror. Tymes Trust has now advised 139 families in connection with such procedures, and in a number of these cases the authorities are trying to enforce these very treatments against the parents' will.
If we go back a stage, we find that the authorities have, almost without exception, seemed to believe that children with ME can recover while following a graded school attendance programme; this is of course just an educational version of graded exercise, as we have so often pointed out.
In our experience, it rarely works well, unless the child is either already substantially recovered, or does not have ME at all - which may well be the case, given that 'CFS' criteria are inventions that pull in people with other 'fatiguing' conditions, and this is the diagnosis that is most often used at the moment.
For classic ME, education in the home CONSERVES ENERGY and is more productive, both in terms of convalescence and educational achievement. This is not just an unsubstantiated opinion, but comes from the practical experience of families who have never looked back after deciding to home educate. This really is not surprising, since one of the three principles for managing ME, according to the great ME expert Dr Elizabeth Dowsett, is CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.
However, state education is the child's right. It should be possible to put in place systems of education that do fulfil the aim of conserving energy, without the family necessarily having to remove their child from the school roll and home educate. Virtual education and home tuition can both play a part for families who wish to stay within the state system during what may be a long recovery process. There should be no pressure on a child with ME to get back to school unless they are clearly strong enough to do so without their health or ability to learn being adversely affected.
With all the physical demands that are placed on a child just to get dressed and get to school even before any lessons are attempted, together with the effort needed to move around the school, socialise and carry bags, the typical state approach of graded school attendance for children with ME is frequently unworkable.
When it fails, and if the authorities then prove intractable in their approach, child protection procedures may be used to enforce the programme. And when that fails too, because the family quite reasonably objects, we may see these attempts to admit the child to a psychiatric unit against the parents' wishes, for physiotherapy, graded exercise and cognitive behaviour therapy. In effect, by exercising their right to stay within the state education system, these parents find themselves at risk of 'losing' their child to the state. This is clearly wrong, and a huge injustice.
Given that the initial graded school attendance programme didn't work, and has led to a deterioration in the child's health, how could anyone believe it possible that graded exercise in any form would do the trick?
Statements by exercise physiologist Mark Van Ness, whose research clearly demonstrates the reality of post exertional deterioration, and by Dr William Weir, whose thirty years' experience with ME patients reveals the same phenomenon in a clinical setting, both show the recent media coverage up in a very poor light. It has caused huge upset and distress amongst families. They know it can only make things harder for them when they quite reasonably try to help their child pace themselves carefully, and convalesce effectively.
Former Head Teacher and Executive Director of Tymes Trust
Rational understanding of the symptoms of ME/CFS
The paradigm which states that the symptoms of ME have a psychological basis continues to be promoted (Lancet Psychiatry 2015: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366%2814%2900069-8/abstract). Most recently “exercise phobia” has been proposed as part of the problem, although a study of which I was a co-author in 2005 explicitly disproved this proposition (J Psychosom Res 58 (2005): 367-373). This paradigm has no plausible scientific basis and can only be described as a doctrine whose adherents continue to ignore the biomedical evidence which amply confirms the organic basis of the condition. As someone with nearly 30 years’ experience of seeing patients with this severely disabling condition I continue to be dismayed by an irrational adherence by the psychological lobby to a doctrine that is not supported, even by their own studies, and which has been undermined by the published biomedical evidence.
The term “phobia” implies an irrational fear of exercise. The reason that ME sufferers avoid exercise is because they know from (sometimes bitter) experience that it makes them feel worse (often much worse) and results in post-exertional malaise (PEM). This is one of the cardinal features of the condition and can last for days, often for weeks and not uncommonly, for months. PEM is not imagined and causes a rational apprehension of exertion which should no longer be labelled as “phobia”. ME sufferers therefore avoid exercise for reasons which are entirely rational, and Dr Mark Van Ness’ recent work (now replicated elsewhere) has put much flesh on the bones of this argument.
As a simple analogy, a newly broken leg causes pain and most people so affected have an entirely rational fear of walking or even bearing weight on the affected limb. The pathophysiological basis of pain caused by a fracture is well understood, and now Dr Van Ness’ work has provided considerable insight into the pathophysiology of PEM. Not only do his findings give a clearer understanding of this devastating symptom of ME but they also effectively dispose of the argument that ME patients have “exercise phobia” or indeed that the disease is caused by patients wrongly believing they are physically ill.
Unfortunately, promotion of the doctrine that ME/CFS has a psychological basis continues to be disseminated by the inappropriately named “Science” Media Centre. They are not, in respect of ME, disseminating science at all, and continue to promote scientifically unsustainable and disproven theory, simultaneously ignoring proper scientific evidence. Sadly this is not an abstruse controversy, and patients whose genuine incapacity continues to be attributed to the psychological paradigm suffer enormously. I regard this as morally indefensible.
Recent media headlines would have us believe that "fear of exercise" hinders our treatment. The papers have each taken slightly different but equally damning headlines:
"Chronic fatigue syndrome patients’ fear of exercise can hinder treatment - Study" The Guardian
"Chronic fatigue syndrome sufferers 'can benefit from exercise'" The Independent
"Exercise can help with ME, scientists say" BBC
"Sufferers of chronic fatigue syndrome ‘can benefit from exercise’" The Irish Independent
"Chronic fatigue victims 'suffer fear of exercise': Patients are anxious activities such as walking could aggravate the condition" Mail Online
"ME: fear of exercise exacerbates chronic fatigue syndrome, say researchers" The Telegraph
What is written behind the headlines is no better. Patients were understandably outraged!
The Newry and Mourne ME Fibromyalgia Support Group have spent much time and effort trying to ensure that medical professionals understand the real physiological problems that ME patients have with aerobic exercise, and less than a year ago Dr Mark VanNess eloquently explained these problems to a packed house in Stormont, Belfast. (More detail here)
Joan McParland (founder and co-ordinator of the Newry and Mourne Group) therefore wrote to Dr VanNess to ask for his response to the these press reports.
The group are delighted that Professor Mark VanNess has agreed that we can share his response. We certainly hope it will help clear up any misunderstanding about exercise for ME patients. His letter is quoted below:
I was saddened to see the press releases regarding the ME/CFS studies from Kings College London. It seems to me they’ve once again missed important nuances of the disease. Nearly all ME/CFS sufferers would either avoid or drop out of any experiment that employed exercise as a treatment because they know it exacerbates symptoms. The remaining subjects would either be very high functioning or consist of fatigued individuals that were incorrectly diagnosed as ME/CFS. Our studies clearly show that dynamic exercise like walking or jogging exacerbates symptoms associated with ME/CFS.
Fear and avoidance of what worsens symptoms is a natural defense mechanism against a harmful stimulus. In fact, many researchers here in the U.S. utilize graded aerobic exercise as a tool to worsen and amplify ME/CFS symptoms – not as a treatment meant to be beneficial. The therapeutic interventions we use are meant to improve quality of life for ME/CFS patients. These interventions focus primarily on strengthening muscles and improving range of motion; activities that get energy from normally functioning anaerobic metabolic mechanisms rather than impaired aerobic energy pathways. We even provide tools like heart rate monitors to help patients avoid significant aerobic exertion.
Fear of exercise is an understandable response in ME/CFS. For a patient with ME/CFS the fear of exercise is a reasonable, knowledgeable, and learned response to a noxious stimulus. If ME/CFS patients could exercise away their symptoms they most certainly would, regardless of the pain. But that is not the case. Our exercise physiologists carefully avoid aerobic exercise (which worsens the pathologies) and focus activity programs that utilize intact metabolic pathways with strength training and recumbent stretching (that help alleviate symptoms). These exercise recommendations are consistent with our understanding of ME/CFS pathology.
We would all hope that ME/CFS was viewed with attention given to immunological, metabolic, cardiovascular and neuroendocrinological dysfunction that has been demonstrated with previous research.
Good luck to you and your organization as you help us all accurately portray this illness.
J. Mark VanNess, Ph.D.
Professor; Departments of Health and Exercise Science and Bioengineering
University of the Pacific
Stockton, California, USA"
Countess of Mar tells House of Lords that people with ME/CFS are treated “abominably” by caring professions | Lords debate | 7 January 2015
The Countess of Mar, who chairs the Forward ME Group of ME charities, made the following contribution during a short debate on NHS: Medical Competence and Skill in the House of Lords yesterday evening (7 January 2014).
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Parekh, for introducing this Question for Short Debate this evening.
I encounter almost daily cases where people with ME/CFS and others with medically unexplained physical symptoms, known as MUPS, are treated abominably by members of supposedly caring professions. For example—and it is by no means an isolated example—a young man of 17 had problems with tolerating foods since he was a small baby. Standard tests could provide no clear reason. By the time he was 16 he was diagnosed by consultant paediatricians at both St Thomas’ and Great Ormond Street hospitals as being extremely reactive to almost all foods and was restricted to a prescribed liquid diet, as none of the consultants had any other resolution. Eventually he was admitted to an environmental medicine polyclinic, where I am also treated, where he has been treated with low-dose immunotherapy and nutritional supplementation. Over a period of a few months, from being able to tolerate no foods he is now eating 33 different foods with few problems.
On his 17th birthday, he went out with some friends for a meal and during that night he developed very severe abdominal pain and, after his GP had refused to visit, his mother managed to get him to the polyclinic. There acute appendicitis was diagnosed and immediate admission to his local hospital in Oxford was recommended. The paediatric consultant’s first response was to ask, “What has the mother of this boy done now?”. On arrival at the hospital the consultant informed the mother that he knew that nothing was wrong with the boy but he would keep him for observation. He scheduled a scan and then went home for the weekend. The boy was left screaming and in acute pain for a further 24 hours, without pain relief or other medication. By the time he was operated on, his appendix had perforated, making treatment much more complex than necessary.
To this day, despite all the evidence of the extremity of his reactions to foods and the failure of our two flagship hospitals to treat this young man’s condition, his Oxford consultant insists that there is nothing wrong with him, that he should stop the polyclinic treatment and that he should eat a normal diet, apparently because standard allergy tests do not provide confirmation. This results in great stress and distress to the boy and his mother.
In fact, substantive evidence in numerous publications proves that the safety and efficacy of immunological changes after treatment with oral immunotherapy for cow’s milk allergy, nut allergy, allergic rhinitis, wheat desensitisation and other specific foods and chemicals is well recognised. The treatments are validated and are neither experimental nor complementary medicine.
I have long wondered why there should be such particularly unreasonable treatment for people with MUPS and I have come to several conclusions. Medicine is supposed to be a very rewarding profession, whether the practitioner is a doctor, nurse or ancillary worker. The patient consults, the doctor diagnoses and prescribes and the patient gets better or at least no worse. On the occasions when the patient’s condition deteriorates and he or she dies, it is usually because the illness is well understood and this is part of a normal process. This is clearly not the case with MUPS. Modern doctors are highly reliant on technology. Test reports taken at face value can dominate the diagnostic process without taking into account factors such as clinical presentation and history and the possibility of false positive or negative results. Additionally, medical practice has become a cost-benefit calculation, with treatments either enforced or rejected on this basis rather than on patient need. I have the distinct impression that, because some doctors and other medical practitioners fail to understand some disease processes, they grow impatient, even intolerant, when their patient fails to respond and then they blame the patient.
The skills that medical practitioners acquire during training are essential to good practice for the rest of their working lives. Unfortunately, the natural scientific curiosity of the profession seems to be stifled in the course of their training. There are still far too many medical professionals who hold that MUPS are “all in the mind” and that patients simply need to pull themselves together, perhaps with the help of a little cognitive behavioural therapy. Somehow, current research findings are not filtering down to doctors who deal with patients.
Are the time constraints on appointments and the dependence on technology reducing a doctor’s ability to listen and to communicate effectively? Is it because GPs and consultants work such long hours that they have neither the time nor the energy to do their own research on problems concerning chronically ill patients? Is it because complex investigations cost money and initial investigations come back as being within normal ranges that the current view is that further tests would not be cost effective? Or is it because doctors have become so demoralised that they can see no reason to go the extra mile on behalf of their patients?
The NHS is excellent for acute management of illness because clear guidelines are usually followed assiduously by all staff. Chronic complex conditions are problematic because clinicians seem to deal with only one symptom at a time. Specialisation means that patients with ME/CFS are rarely looked at holistically. I have heard of one doctor’s surgery with a notice on the door which reads, “One complaint at a time”. The trouble is that frequently it is the combination of symptoms which will point to a clear diagnosis.
I have confined my speech to one aspect of competence and skill, one which falls far short of the excellence that should be the norm. I am interested to hear how the Minister proposes to improve the position for some 250,000 patients with ME/CFS and the many more who have other medically unexplained symptoms.
The debate was answered by the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health, Earl Howe, and the full text can be read HERE.
As another year of agony threatens to grind us into awful nothingness, as I hang dishevelled with bleeding fingertips, digging deep, wrecking my brain, trying to inject, with a breaking heart, a little hope and optimism, I find by accident, a reference by Hooper and Williams, to something I wrote a long time ago :
“In a paper dated 8th March 2008 entitled “The Year of No Compromise” Greg Crowhurst, a health care professional whose wife is one of the most severely affected ME/CFS sufferers in the UK, said the following
“This is a simple summary of the inferred messages underpinning the psychiatric paradigm, currently being heavily promoted in the UK”.
….Crowhurst’s summary exactly captures the situation in the UK:
do not investigate ME patients
do not provide special facilities for ME patients other than psychiatric clinics
do not offer special training to doctors about the disorder
do not offer appropriate medical care for ME patients
do not offer respite care for ME patients
do not offer State benefits for those with ME do not conduct biomedical research into the disorder
the wreaking of havoc in the lives of ME patients and their families by the arrogant pursuit of a psychiatric construct of the disorder.
the attempts to subvert the international classification of this disorder from neurological to behavioural
the propagation of untruths and falsehoods about the disorder
the building of affiliations with corporate industry
the insidious infiltration of all the major institutions
the denigration of those with ME
the attempt to make "ME" disappear in a sea of chronic fatigue
the refusal to see or acknowledge the multiplicity of symptoms
the ignoring and misinterpretation of the biomedical evidence
the suppression of published findings
the vested interests
the arresting and sectioning of protestors
the silencing of ME patients, through being given a psychiatric label
the suppression of dissent
the labelling of ME patients as the "undeserving sick", as malingerers
the forcible removal of sick children and adults from their homes.
Well, that is progress ! However, as I write in the latest 25% Group Christmas Magazine :
"I turn to the lonely wall and I am thinking to myself, when are the campaign groups going to face-up to the fact that whatever we throw at the Psyches, the NICE’s... , they just absorb with a great big belly laugh. Rant and rave all you like on the internet and they agree with you, with a sly twinkle. Your concerns, your outrage, your petitions they will even sign up to, while slapping you on the back, with a dagger in their hand. "
Even so - as Baker's extraordinary admission last year indicates, we ARE making progress. There IS reason for hope.
But we HAVE to discover a new radicalism !! It has been a long, long road. Many of us are beyond worn-out, it is such a struggle surviving.
Could this year be an ME Spring ? Alone among all the Charities that have sold us out, the 25% Group is taking a stand this year, inviting patients to share their experience of ME, so that "we can wake up the powers that be to the reality of patient experience."
Yes, yes !!! Patient experience is EXACTLY what is required, especially in this Election Year in the UK; exposing the reality of what is happening as opposed to the psychiatric rhetoric is a long overdue. Why has this initiative not happened sooner ??
M.E. and exercise – when will they ever learn? editorial in our winter 2014 ‘ME Essential’ magazine
Our chairman, Neil Riley, wrote this in the winter 2014 edition of our membership magazine, ‘ME Essential’.
My sister Kate lives in Australia. In August she came to Europe with her husband for a holiday. Their first port of call was Amsterdam.
I was too ill to meet her so my daughter, Rachel, went and took along her IPad. And so it was that on a cold, wet Saturday morning, Kate and I had a “FaceTime” video linkup as she sat in an Amsterdam coffee house whilst I was on the sofa at home.
I said I was so sorry that I could not make it to Holland to see her but explained that I was too ill with my ME. “Oh” she said, “you need to try that Graded Exercise therapy, it was in the newspaper the other day. It can cure you, you know”.
There was a stunned silence here and a gasp from my daughter Rachel in Amsterdam. What could I say? How do you explain to your sister, whom you imagine after all these years, would know about ME, that such a therapy was much more likely to make me worse than better.
I had to end the” FaceTime” link. I then felt the tears trickling down my face. “How could she”, I thought, doesn’t she know me?
I am not the only ME sufferer whose nearest and dearest have doubted them. It is heart-breaking. Only those who live with us each day or who have taken the trouble to understand what this illness is, can see what our life really is like.
Our quality of life is less than cancer and multiple sclerosis patients up to six months before their death, yet we are treated as though we just lack the will to exercise and pick up our bed and walk. The lack of recognition of the seriousness of our illness is a blight on the medical profession.
This is a powerful message that we must get across. Not only to our nearest and dearest but to the world at large.
Exercise Intolerance Quotes
“The whole idea that you can take a disease like this and exercise your way to health is foolishness, it’s insane.”
PAUL CHENEY, M.D., Ph.D.
"Those physicians and researchers who are familiar with the disease of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) are in agreement that activity or exercise can lead to a severe relapse.
How to engage in desired or necessary activities in a way that does not lead to a crash thus is an important topic for those with the disease.
Following are more than two dozen comments from experts in M.E. on this topic.
Except where indicated otherwise, the quotes were supplied directly by the named individuals for this collection (in some cases a few years ago).
For those who like the good old traditional style hymns and choruses, this new double CD by Peter Jackson and friends will make enjoyable listening, with Peter accompanying on the piano the clear Scottish singing. As you listen to his playing, you would certainly never know that Peter is blind!
As he writes on the album cover -
I've always been a fairly ambitious person, but with advancing years, ambitions began to retreat: yet one remained obstinate and unsatisfied. In my travels, I had mentioned it to quite a number of churches who, for the most part, thought very favourably of this remaining ambition – to put on CD many of the choruses that we loved to sing in churches, in rallies, and around the piano in times long past.
I wondered whether this ambition would ever be fulfilled, and then came a communication from my colleagues in Fraserburgh who shared this ambition with me. This double CD album is the result, and I am for ever indebted to these wonderful people.
Many years ago, the young people sang the same choruses as the older folk, and then came the division, alas, largely brought about by music. Is it too much that these discs could somehow bridge the gap once more? And even if it is, we present these songs to the following generation, and trust that God will make them as much of a blessing to you as they were to us.
You can find the lyrics and track listing for "These We Have Loved" by clicking here.
For other items that Peter has produced, click here.
The Hooker/Wakefield/Moody Complaint - "The Hammer Falls!"
Dr. Brian Hooker, Dr. Andrew Wakefield, and attorney James Moody announced today they have sent a complaint by Federal Express to Dr. Harold Jaffe, Associate Director for Science at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, as well as Dr. Don Wright, Acting Director of the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services, claiming research misconduct in the 2004 paper, "Age at First Measles-Mumps-Rubella Vaccination in Children with Autism and School-Matched Control Subjects: A Population-Based Study in Metropolitan Atlanta," which was subsequently published in the journal, Pediatrics.
The allegations are horrifying, not just for the millions of families who deal with autism on a daily basis, but for the picture it paints of a government agency, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), devoid of any shred of scientific integrity or what we once used to call "honor" in this country.
If these claims are shown to be true, we will be looking at nothing less than the greatest crime committed in the history of our republic, and a dark page in science which will be remembered for centuries to come.
In 2001, a group at the CDC, headed by Dr. Frank DeStefano, and including Dr. William Thompson, Dr. Marshalyn Yeargin-Allsopp, Dr. Tanya Karapurkar Bhasin, and Dr. Coleen Boyle planned to test the hypothesis that the earlier administration of the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) shot was linked to an increase in autism rates. This research was prompted by the work of Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues, suggesting a link between autism and MMR shots, and his call for additional research to answer the question. The CDC scientists came up with that plan and recorded it in a document dated September 5, 2001, but did not follow it because of troubling findings among certain groups.
When scientists set out to test a hypothesis they come up with a research plan. That plan is supposed to be followed, and if for some reason it is not, there must be an explanation of why not. It is one of the basic tenets in science. You show EVERYTHING. You do not CONCEAL DATA. If there is a hell for scientists, this is the sin which sends you to the very lowest regions.
In the eighteenth century, the attorney William Murray, in a case which sought to outlaw slavery in England stated it succintly, "Let justice be done, though the heavens may fall." With apologies to William Murray, a research plan in science should come with a similar warning, "Let science be done, though the heavens may fall" (or public health and pharmaceutical company profits be thrown into chaos.)
Two specific groups were the subject of this concealment: African-American males, and a group the CDC termed "isolated autism" (children with no co-morbid developmental disorder such as mental retardation, cerebral palsy, hearing or vision problems, epilepsy, or birth defect) or what the rest of the honest world would generally call "normally developing children."
For the African-American males, this was the increased risk of autism by earlier administration of the MMR vaccine:
-- MMR vaccination after 36 months - 1.0 risk of autism. (The rate of autism at that time.)
-- MMR vaccination prior to 36 months - 3.36 fold increase in the risk of autism.
For the "isolated autism" group (normally developing children), this was the increased risk of autism by earlier administration of the MMR vaccine:
MMR vaccination after 36 months - 1.00 risk of autism.
MMR vaccination prior to 36 months - 3.86 fold increase in the risk of autism.
In the data it was shown that the children at greatest risk in both subgroups were those children vaccinated by 18 months, demonstrating a clear trend that the earlier the MMR vaccination, the higher the risk of autism. The withholding of this information also impacted those seeking compensation for their vaccine-injured children in the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, or what the rest of the world would call "obstruction of justice." It's like a prosecutor failing to turn over a key piece of evidence which exonerates a murder suspect, then saying nothing when the defendant goes to the electric chair. But in this case, the alleged wrong wasn't against just one individual, but an entire generation of children and their families.
If these allegations are proven true, we will be looking at scientific misconduct of the very highest order. It is difficult to come up with words to describe such behavior. How can scientists committed to "public health" be so comfortable with concealing such important data? It seems we will need to come up with a new word to describe such conduct. Even tyrants and dictators who kill and main millions claim to commit their heinous acts in the name of their people, their clan, an ideology, or their family. What we have here is a willingness to betray the entire human race.
Perhaps the words of the conspirators themselves are what we should place on their tombstones, or the historical account of them which will be left for future generations to read, and to consider when their courage falters in the face of troubling findings. The statement of Dr. William Thompson on the concealment of data about the effect on African-American males might be one that we include:
I regret that my co-authors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
Maybe we don't need to invent new words. Those who read such accounts in the future will know exactly how much these scientists were committed to the "public health."
Today we can announce the dates of our 2015 Biomedical Research Colloquium and international ME Conference.
The Biomedical Research into ME Colloquium 5 (BRMEC5) will now take place over two days from 27th-28th May 2015.
The date for IIMEC10 –The 10th Invest in ME International ME Conference 2015 – will be 29th May 2015.
Both events will be in London.
With support from our colleagues in the European ME Alliance we will build on the international collaboration which has been facilitated by the conferences and colloquiums in recent years and which is the way forward for ME research.
It is encouraging to see our Colloquium gaining in credibility every year.
Last year almost 50 researchers from nine countries attended the BRMEC4 Colloquium.
We will continue try to bring in new researchers from outside the ME field to enhance the knowledge and ideas – something we have been doing from our first researchers meeting four years ago.
A distinct microsite for the conference events will be available shortly.
Invest in ME (Research) would like to thank our European ME Alliance Sweden colleagues at RME for supporting the conference already with a donation toward the costs of the conference.
International ME Conferences
The Invest in ME International ME Conferences are CPD accredited biomedical conferences which provide a platform for the latest information and biomedical research on myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Invest in ME began the conferences in 2006 and they are now an annual event in May. The conferences attract some of the most renowned speakers from all over the world and are valuable sources of education and information for healthcare professionals, doctors, nurses, researchers, ME support groups and people with ME and enable an excellent insight into these areas and the issues currently facing the healthcare and ME patient communities.
The conferences and, later, the Colloquiums have been generating new research and opportunities for years. The charity has now put in place the key building blocks to take ME research into this century with high-quality biomedical research in world class organisations being performed by some of the best researchers.
Our conferences have been facilitating discussions and sharing of information between patients, researchers and clinicians for almost 10 years.
International Biomedical Research into ME Colloquiums
The Invest in ME International Biomedical Research into ME Colloquiums began as a way of bringing together researchers from around the world in a round-table discussion of ME research and ideas. Over the years this has broadened to sharing of experiences, data and plans. We now have a basis for creating a strategy of international biomedical research which will hold far greater promise of creating proper funding and awareness of biomedical research into ME.
Use the link here to see reviews of all of the IiME conferences and colloquiums.
Massive vaccine cover-up confirmed: Secret documents prove vaccines cause autism
(NaturalNews) The ongoing debate over whether or not vaccines cause autism would probably take on an entirely different tone if key information that has been mostly censored from the public was fully brought to light. Hidden documents that have been locked away for more than two decades reveal that the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella does cause autism, and regulators, drug executives and various others have known about this for a long time.
A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request filed in the UK has forced the Department of Health to release confidential documents outlining the details of MMR's initial approval back in the 1980s. These documents reveal that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), the manufacturer of the MMR vaccine Pluserix, knew that there were problems with the vaccine causing a high rate of adverse events in children. Among these were encephalitis and other conditions associated with autism.
Concerned that the British government was withholding information about MMR's dangers from the public, the FOIA request was filed in response to the growing number of vaccinated children who were coming down with debilitating gut problems, brain damage and other symptoms believed to be associated with MMR. As it turns out, these suspicions are now validated.
"We have compensated cases in which children exhibited an encephalopathy, or general brain disease," admitted Tina Cheatham, Senior Advisor to the Administrator of the Health Resources and Services Administration of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), in an email to CBS News' Sharyl Attkisson. "Encephalopathy may be accompanied by a medical progression of an array of symptoms including autistic behavior, autism, or seizures."
CDC, Pediatrics, US government and Merck all admit MMR vaccine causes autism
This admission is huge, as encephalopathy following vaccination is a known trigger of autistic symptoms, and something that the confidential documents from the UK also admit. GSK, the British government and various other players all kept this information under wraps, even after brave souls like Dr. Andrew Wakefield came forward publicly with data linking the MMR vaccine to autism-related health outcomes.
Reading between the lines, health authorities have, in fact, linked MMR to autism -- but they won't come right out and say it. Rubella, for instance, the German measles component of MMR, has been known to be a cause of autism since the 1960s. The U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has admitted this publicly, as has the National Immunization Program (now the National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases). Even Merck & Co. a major manufacturer of MMR vaccines, has admitted that vaccines in general can cause autism.
"[R]ubella (congenital rubella syndrome) is one of the few proven causes of autism," stated Walter A. Orenstein, M.D., former Assistant Surgeon General and Director of the National Immunization Program, in a 2002 letter to the UK's Chief Medical Officer.
"[R]ubella virus is one of the few known causes of autism," explained the CDC on its "FAQs (frequently asked questions) about MMR Vaccine & Autism" page, which has since been removed from public view. It is still available in some web archives.
Dr. Julie Gerberding, M.D., M.P.H., the current President of Merck's Vaccines Division, is also on record as admitting that people with a predisposition to mitochondrial dysfunction can develop autism following vaccination. A minimum of 20 percent of vaccine-induced autism cases are associated with mitochondrial dysfunction.
"Now, we all know that vaccines can occasionally cause fevers in kids," stated Dr. Gerberding back in 2008 during a segment on House Call with Dr. Sanjay Gupta titled "Unraveling the Mystery of Autism."
"So if a child was immunized, got a fever, had other complications from the vaccines. And if you're predisposed with the mitochondrial disorder, it can certainly set off some damage. Some of the symptoms can be symptoms that have characteristics of autism."
For more, visit:
Secret British MMR Vaccine Files Forced Open By Legal Action
Invest in ME are pleased to announce that our initial research fund target objective of £350,000 has been reached.
In the weeks following the Invest in ME Conference 2013 events in London the charity announced its intention to initiate a UK clinical trial of rituximab for ME in cooperation with UCL. After discussions with our advisor, professor Jonathan Edwards and the UCL research team under Dr Jo Cambridge, the charity organised a visit to Bergen by Professor Edwards to discuss with the Norwegian researchers Professor Mella and Dr Fluge. For the last year Invest in ME and our supporters have been raising awareness of the trial and raising funds.
Now, thanks to patients with ME and their families and friends - and with enormous and generous help from a foundation's pledge in memory of Roger Hendrie - the Invest in ME/UCL clinical trial project clinical has reached the initial target of £350,000.
This is a truly amazing effort for which so many can deservedly congratulate themselves.
We again thank our supporters who have done so much to change things (see earlier tribute to our supporters - an international event).
We continue our efforts to raise the further funds for a contingency research fund as the preliminary B-cell study which is now underway may result in changes to the trial.
We thank all those who are supporting this trial and we hope for continued support.
Invest in ME and its supporters have achieved this by themselves.
One event can change everything - one small charity one BIG Cause.
Click here to see/download our posters for the IIME/UCL rituximab trial.
Breaking News: Chemical Changes in Immune Cell DNA from ME/CFS Patients
We are pleased to announce the first study to report epigenetic modifications throughout the genome in female ME/CFS patients compared to a matched sample of healthy controls. This research conducted in partnership and funded by the Solve ME/CFS Initiative (SMCI) was published today in the high impact and open access journal PLOS ONE (http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0104757).
The Solve ME/CFS Initiative launched our Research Institute Without Walls in 2010 and Dr. Patrick McGowan was one of our first grantees to use this innovative infrastructure. Together with his graduate student, Will de Vega and SMCI’s Scientific Director, Suzanne D. Vernon, they found evidence of distinct epigenetic profiles in immune and other physiologically relevant genes in a selected group of female ME/CFS patients. Will de Vega, who performed much of the work, is a PhD candidate in the department of Cell and Systems Biology at the University of Toronto. His thesis research concerns how environmental factors and ME/CFS impact immunological processes, and their effects on clinically relevant phenotypes.
Epigenetic modifications affect the way genes are turned on or off without changing the inherited gene sequences. “Knowledge about the epigenetics of ME/CFS could potentially lead to alternative treatment options for sufferers, from targeted lifestyle interventions to new pharmacological treatments”, notes McGowan. There were many epigenetic modifications in and around immune genes that affect the way these genes are regulated and expressed. These types of changes would be expected to affect immune cell function in ME/CFS patients. “This is the first in a series of exciting results coming from McGowan’s lab at the University of Toronto”, says Suzanne D. Vernon. “By understanding these epigenetic differences in the immune cells of ME/CFS patients, we can begin to decipher the molecular mechanisms of the immune dysfunction that we suspect is at the root of ME/CFS”.
McGowan started this ME/CFS epigenetic research in 2012. His quick success is a testament to the power of patient-centered research approach used by the Solve ME/CFS Initiative. “Our study would not have been possible without the funding provided by the Solve ME/CFS Initiative, patient samples from the SolveCFS BioBank, and the collaborative support of the Initiative’s scientific director Dr. Suzanne D. Vernon” says McGowan.
The Solve ME/CFS Initiative will continue to partner with McGowan and his team at the University of Toronto to further this exciting work of epigenetics and ME/CFS. This field of research holds promise for identification of diagnostic biomarkers and potential treatment and interventions for ME/CFS. For right now it is further demonstration of the indisputable biological basis of ME/CFS.
Today is severe ME Awareness Day, dedicated to those who suffer the worst effects of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis. Naomi Whittingham describes life with severe ME
By Naomi Whittingham
9:58AM BST 08 Aug 2014
Ordinarily, illness is measured in days or weeks; and for the unfortunate months or even years. Then there are those of us for whom illness, pain and suffering is measured in decades. This is my twenty-fifth year of being ill: a quarter of a century spent mostly in housebound, bed-bound isolation.
I have had ME since the age of twelve, after catching a routine virus from which I never recovered. Within months I was unable to move, speak or open my eyes. I had to be spoonfed. Constant, agonising headaches forced me to lie in a dark and silent room. I was so ill that my family and doctor feared I could die at any moment.
ME affects around 250,000 people in the UK, with 25% so severely affected that they are house or bed bound. It is now widely recognised as a neurological condition although some doctors still mistakenly believe the cause to be psychological, or that it can be cured by exercise. ME involves every bodily system and symptoms include flu-like malaise, severe pain, muscle weakness, cognitive dysfunction and acute sensitivity to sensory stimulation.
After spending my early teenage years in a death-like state, I began to slowly improve. At 37, I remain in a wheelchair most of the time and dependent on full-time care from my mother, now 63, but I consider myself fortunate. If you met me during a better spell in the day, you might not realise there was much wrong with me. You wouldn't see the collapse into bed afterwards; the desperate need to lie in silence to prevent an escalation of symptoms such as pain, muscle jerking and vomiting.
In the twenty-five years of my illness I have watched my peers become teenagers and then adults. My journey to maturity has been marked by very different rites of passage: I have had to learn to feed myself again, to speak, to sit up. I have had to re-build self-belief from the shattering effects of having a misunderstood illness. It is destroying enough to experience the collapse of every bodily system; it brings one close to ruin when the cause is suggested as lack of motivation or a wish to escape life.
I have never driven a car or made a journey unaccompanied; I have never had a job or a boyfriend or a home of my own. I will never have the children I would love. For many women this last would be a devastating blow. Swamped by so many other losses, I barely register it.
Chronic illness is a bereavement: a lengthy grieving for shattered dreams. Despite this, I am not a tragic figure. Decades of intense suffering have given me a deep appreciation of life, of the simple pleasure of a sunset or spring flowers. I have a wide network of friends with ME and those of us who are well enough communicate through email and Facebook.
Recently someone asked me what I would do if I were well for a day. The possibilities for that one, cherished day not confined to bed or a wheelchair are too numerous to comprehend. Getting out of bed unaided, stepping out into the garden, making a cup of tea, styling my hair, shopping, going to the sea for the first time in years: basic, spontaneous activities which most people take for granted.
For me and thousands of others locked in this prison, the only prospect of release lies in quality biomedical research, of which there is far too little. There are promising developments in the study of viruses and immune abnormalities, and the hope of identifying diagnostic biomarkers and eventually drug treatments. But lack of funding means that progress is slow and in the meantime lives are wasted.
I will never get my youth back; but progress in understanding ME is urgently needed, before future generations lose theirs.
Voices from the Shadows, an award-winning documentary, tells the story of several severe ME sufferers, including Naomi and Sophia Mirza, who died aged 32. www.voicesfromtheshadowsfilm.co.uk
Invest in ME contacted Llewellyn King to ask for permission to republish this article – as it chimes so well with the views of the charity regarding progress, obstructions to progress, and the need to begin sowing the seeds of change.
Llewellyn King is executive producer and host of “White House Chronicle” on PBS, a columnist for the Hearst-New York Times Syndicate and a commentator on SiriusXM Satellite Radio.
I consider this a manifesto for the ME/CFS community. These are my thoughts, after nearly five years of watching the anguish and the neglect that surrounds this disease.
The manifesto states what I think should be done now.
And “now” is an important word.
There is a story that Winston Churchill, when he was very old and sick, summoned the gardener at his beloved country home in Kent, Chartwell, and asked him to plant an oak tree in an open space.
The gardener, looking at his enfeebled employer, swallowed and said,
“But, sir, an oak tree takes a hundred years to grow.”
“Then you'd better plant it now, hadn't you?” said Churchill.
During World War II, Churchill used this same execution imperative approach to work. Churchill used to stick little, pre-printed notes — long before the days of Post-it notes -- on his paperwork for staff that read, “Action This Day.”
One of the first things that struck me about ME/CFS, when I started writing and broadcasting on the subject, was how slow the pace of progress was, even as the suffering suggested the need for immediate action.
The second was how stingy public and private funding for research was then and is now.
I want my friends and loves, who are in the grip of a relentless affliction, whose days are torn from the calendar of hell, to be cured in my lifetime -- and I am 74. I want to be able to hold them as whole happy people; the people they were before they were struck down by an enemy they did not provoke, a monster they do not deserve, an unseen captor, a malicious jailer that takes daily life and makes it into a tool of torture and punishment.
One year, the CFIDS Association of America was able to declare proudly that it had raised $2 million.
The National Institutes of Health, a federal agency that should be pushing research, granted a paltry $5 million for ME/CFS in 2013. By comparison, in that same year, I learned that a consortium of foundations was sponsoring a green power marketing initiative at $6 million a year.
I have spent nearly 50 years writing about federal funding for energy, science and technology, and the sums of money spent has been in the tens of billions of dollars. One company gets more than $60 million year-in a year-out for nuclear fusion research -- and I see nothing wrong with that.
But when I look at the federal funding for ME/CFS research, I am aghast: It is not funded at a level that can be expected to produce results. It is, to my mind, a crime against the sick; morally, if not criminally, indictable.
"Other governments are not free of guilt for the suffering – and the United Kingdom stands out among the many offenders."
To allow the scale of suffering that attends ME/CFS, without making research on the disease a national priority, is close to wilful neglect; an abrogation of the high purposes of Hippocrates' calling.
Other governments are not free of guilt for the suffering – and the United Kingdom stands out among the many offenders.
These governments have been seduced by the fraudulent blandishments of the psychiatric lobby. If a ME/CFS patient refuses to accept a psychiatric diagnosis, he or she can either be imprisoned or forced to suffer the insinuation that they are not physically sick, even if they cannot get out of bed. There are cases in Europe where patients refusing the prescribed psychiatric treatment have been imprisoned, as happened most recently to Karina Hansen in Denmark.
The United States is experiencing a boom in natural gas production and the deployment of solar panels on rooftops.
These successes are the manifestation of substantial research money committed in the 1970s, and sustained since then.
Science needs certainty of support, both political and financial, to triumph.
The key is sustained funding; a splash here and a dash there just won't do -- it won't do anything. ME/CFS researchers need to concentrate on their work, wherever that work takes them, free from the stress of insecure funding.
ME/CFS deserves the level of effort that might lead to success. It is not getting it now, and it never has had it. It is appalling that Dr. Ian Lipkin, the highly respected virus hunter, is trying to raise $1.27 million through crowd funding to investigate the role of microbiome in ME/CFS. What we are seeing is a scientist forced to beg.
Yet this fundamental research, with application for diseases beyond ME/CFS, is at the frontier of biomedical science.
If we, as a nation, are to believe that we are in the forefront of science, we must be in the forefront of biomedical research as well as the forefront of computers, telecommunications, materials and physics.
We almost humbled polio, and developed powerful drug therapies for AIDS.
We can transplant vital organs and gave hope to the leper. The advances came neither cheaply nor easily, but they have saved lives beyond counting and eased suffering beyond enumeration.
Why not for ME/CFS? Why not?
There is eloquence in the voices of the community. But they are widely distributed and, sadly, they fall mostly on ears of those who already know them — the sick, their families and their advocates.
The voices need to be heard widely, need to be channelled and need to be focused. A million points of light won't do it. A laser, a great beam, will do it.
There are three principal reasons why these voices are not heard by those who need to hear them:
1 ME/CFS is a hard story for the media to grasp.
2. ME/CFS has no celebrity doing what Elizabeth Taylor did for AIDS, what Jerry Lewis did for Multiple Sclerosis, or what Michael J. Fox is doing for Parkinson's Disease.
3 ME/CFS has no presence in Washington.
Of the three, the last is the most critical to act on, and it is the one that would produce the most measurable result. Simply stated: Being on the ground in Washington every day is the essential step the community has to take.
To get results in Washington, you need to-see-and-be-seen in the daily life there. Letters and petitions do not have nearly the impact as a Washington denizen talking to a decision-maker in person.
Happily this would amount to one very visible person, who strolls the halls of Congress, lunches at the clubs and restaurants, like the Cosmos or Metropolitan clubs, or the Monocle Restaurant on Capitol Hill. Once, I was mentioned in the Wonkette blog because I was spotted entering Bistro B, a favourite restaurant of the powerful, and those who think they are powerful.
If your children attend one of the power schools, like St. Alban's or Sidwell Friends, contacts can be made and deals can be done at the events.
A friend of mine enlisted President Bill Clinton's help for a cause because their children went to the same school.
It may strike you as banal, but it is the Washington political game.
Learn to play it.
Washington is a society of people who are impressed with each other.
It is important to be known. If you are invited to the annual White House
Correspondents' Association or Alfalfa Club dinners, you are known. The next step is to be known for ME/CFS advocacy.
Once known, the perfect advocate/lobbyist will morph into a resource, a voice for others in Washington: a source of information for congressional aides trying to understand the budget requests of agencies, and a source of information for reporters writing about diseases of the immune system.
A voice in Washington puts pressure on government agencies to do the right thing, and on members of Congress to authorize and appropriate money.
The advocate/lobbyist can learn, through the hearing process, about the diligence and transparency of the agencies and the quality of their operations; to see if they are doing the job or treading water, to see how transparent their operations are and the quality of professionals operating programs.
Another salutary source of pressure in Washington is the press corps. It covers not just politics but also the functioning of government.
The pinnacle of power in the corps are still The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal.
But the news agencies, The Associated Press, Bloomberg and Reuters, followed by a veritable media army that cover politics and programs, including Politico, The Hill, Roll Call, National Journal, and the specialized medical publications also play important roles.
Fifty years ago, the center of media activity was New York. Now it is Washington. A professional advocate for ME/CFS needs to cultivate the media and to be comfortable with the currency of Washington and to trade in it.
That currency is information.
Washington is a great information market. The successful lobbyist/advocate is, by the nature of the city and its functioning, an information broker.
The sums of money that will be needed to accelerate research cannot be calculated and could be very substantial.
Research funding, above all, needs to be sustained at predictable levels.
The pharmaceutical industry figures that a new drug can cost upwards of $1.2 billion. I mention it only to hint at the vast amount of money needed for drug research and development.
How much ME/CFS will need and for how long is an existential question?
Money stimulates research, attracts new young minds to the field and leads to success. Right now, there is so little money funding so few researchers in ME/CFS.
In the United States, that success may be a long time in coming – too long for those for whom today will be a living hell, as yesterday was and tomorrow will be.
I figure that for as little as $1 million, a start toward a Washington presence can be made. That would cover one advocate/lobbyist, one office and one assistant for one year; not a smidgeon of attention from a giant lobbying firm, but a dedicated ME/CFS standard-bearer. Funding should grow within a year, as the ME/CFS cause comes out of the shadows.
I operated a small business in Washington for 33 years, and I am confident that a new ME/CFS presence there will reverse the disease's funding fortunes at NIH, increase media awareness, and cause the big foundations to sit up and take notice. It would give ME/CFS the kind of presence that other diseases with active advocates – COPD, ALS, MS and others -- have in Washingon and the nation.
If this is not done the government will continue to ignore the case for ME/CFS. Worse, the new billionaires who are beginning to throw real money into biomedical research will not know about ME/CFS. It will be hidden in plain sight much as it has been from the wider public.
ME/CFS needs a place on the national agenda if it is to be understood and cured in reasonable time, and if the very best minds are to be attracted to the task and to stay with it.
That Churchill oak needs to be planted now, and in sight of the U.S. Capitol.
False Allegations of Child Abuse in Cases of Childhood Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)
A peer reviewed academic article by Jane Colby, Executive Director of the Tymes Trust
There is no cure for ME (Myalgic Encephalomyelitis). In its absence, management regimes are prescribed, typically based on cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET). In the case of children this may involve the application of Child Protection powers to enforce treatment. NICE confirms that patients may withdraw from treatment without effects on future care, but parents who decline, or withdraw children from, management regimes, which may have worsened their illness, can find themselves facing investigation for child abuse or neglect, or have their child forcibly confined to a psychiatric unit. Tymes Trust has advised 121 families facing suspicion/investigation. To date, none of these families has been found to be at fault. Subsuming ME under the heterogeneous term Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) has confounded research and treatment and led to disbelief over its severity and chronicity. As evidence points to persistent viral infection, recommendations have been made to separate ME from CFS. International consensus criteria for ME emphasise post-exertional deterioration as distinct from fatigue. If the child with ME deteriorates under management regimes, re-diagnosis with a psychiatric condition can mask treatment failure and lead to blame attaching to the parent. A more constructive redeployment of resources away from Child Protection investigations into appropriate practical support for these seriously unwell children, should be developed.
Jane has worked with the All Party Parliamentary Group on ME and the All Party Parliamentary Group on Abuse Investigations in regard to the issues raised in this paper. Jane is a former Head teacher. She was co-author of the largest epidemiological study of ME to date, and prepared the questionnaire for the BBC Panorama ME documentary. She was a member of the Chief Medical Officer’s Working Group on CFS/ME. A former severe ME sufferer, Jane is also the Executive Director of Tymes Trust.
Mr Speaker: Mr Bradley has sought leave to present a public petition in accordance with Standing Order 22. The Member will have up to three minutes to speak on the subject.
Mr D Bradley: Go raibh míle maith agat, a Cheann Comhairle. Caithfidh mé a rá go bhfuil mé thar a bheith buíoch díot as an deis seo a fháil chun an achainí seo a chur faoi do bhráid agus faoi bhráid an Tionóil. Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to present this petition on behalf of Newry and Mourne ME/Fibromyalgia Support Group to you and the Assembly. As you know, both of those conditions are extremely serious. They leave the sufferers in great pain and devoid of energy.
For many years, the Newry and Mourne ME group has been working hard to inform people about the illnesses and to provide advice and support to them. For the most part, the work is carried out by volunteers, who, largely, are patients who suffer from ME and fibromyalgia. I have great admiration for people who use their own time and resources to help others who suffer from the same illness. Today's petition asks the Minister of Health to adopt the Canadian consensus criteria on ME and fibromyalgia.
The criteria have been agreed by a plethora of experts in Canada and other countries throughout the world. The Newry and Mourne support group and many others believe that they offer the best option for sufferers to find relief from the illness and, ultimately, to be cured of it.
As I said, Mr Speaker, I am honoured to present the petition to you on behalf of the group. It has been signed by hundreds of people. The group has done amazing work in promoting it. I am sure that our Health Minister will read the petition and the documentation contained in the file very carefully. I hope that his response will be a positive one. On that note, Mr Speaker, it only remains for me to thank you very much.
Mr D Bradley moved forward and laid the petition on the Table.
Mr Speaker: I will forward a copy of the petition to the Minister of Health, Social Services and Public Safety and to the Chair of the Health Committee, Maeve McLaughlin.
Market failure can be sign of fatigue
I thought that this is an interesting ME-related article on the Reuters blog. Apart from the fact that the author seems to view ME and CFS as the same condition, it is well worth reading.
The author is a Reuters Breakingviews columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.
Modern economies work to meet consumers’ needs. So if needs are not met, that must be an economic failure, right? Healthcare suggests otherwise. Sometimes, unhelpful ideologies get in the way of economics delivering the goods.
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) – also known as myalgic encephalopathy (ME) – is a case in point. The economic benefit of treating this difficult condition should be material for patients, drugmakers and society. Yet the treatment is poor.
CFS is still a mystery. It is identified mostly by its long list of symptoms, starting with persistent exhaustion. What seems to be happening is an interconnected network of malfunctions in the nervous, circulatory and digestive systems. Estimates of the number of sufferers vary greatly. Something like 0.1 percent of the population is plausible.
Medical ignorance reflects a lack of research, and the lack of research reflects a lack of professional respect. Despite the devastating effects on those who have it – many sufferers spend years bedridden – most doctors and funding agencies did not take the disease seriously until recently.
Even now, research funding is scarce and many doctors tell sufferers that there is nothing fundamentally wrong with them. Their symptoms are dismissed as physical manifestations of psychological difficulties. The psychological reductionism is not only medically irresponsible. It also doesn’t make sense in the modern economy.
CFS is the sort of complicated condition that our high-tech, high-expense healthcare is supposed to address well, or at least make a serious effort to do so. More crassly, this is a reasonably common disease that attacks many people in the prime of life. That makes it expensive in terms of lost activity and the cost of caring. And it looks like a disease which can only be dealt with by long courses of expensive drugs – just what pharmaceutical companies crave.
Why isn’t the healthcare industry – the delivery system, the research complex and the profit-seekers – more interested?
One theory is that the disease is not quite awful enough to catch the public’s attention. It rarely kills directly and it comes with few symptoms that show up well in pictures. A related suggestion is that the right celebrity endorsement has not yet come along. Many patients and their advocates see a malign conspiracy, aiming to empower psychiatrists or reduce disability payments.
There is something in all these explanations. However, the most important reason that this physical condition was left so long to the psychological crowd is intellectual: it does not fit with the traditional model of infectious disease.
The model was articulated in its crude form by the German bacteriologist Robert Koch in 1883. The principle is simple: the body is made ill by the invasion of some pathogen, an outside organism which disrupts the natural functioning of one or more systems. In other words, for each ailment there is a single external cause which can be identified and isolated.
In theory, scientists have steadily retreated from this model of “me against the invader.” It turns out that many pathogens are present in small quantities in healthy bodies and that many otherwise healthy substances in the body can turn toxic. The biological interactions are delicate and multi-faceted. The organism rarely works perfectly, so the boundary between well and ill is often fuzzy.
The newer theory has not been well translated into practice. The old biological model persists because it works so well for most of the conditions that doctors know how to treat. It also suits the standard specialised research methodology. CFS, which crosses systems and appears to involve many tiny failures, simply does not fit the Koch model.
Fortunately, the situation is improving. There are some scientists taking an interest, even if they have to rely on crowdfunding. The leading researchers do see the disease as a complex and multi-system failure. Their work could lead to a medical, intellectual and economic triumph.
But the severe lack of mainstream financial support is holding them back. That makes no sense, even on the crassest and narrowest economic calculation. Treatments or vaccines for CFS are likely to turn out to cost less than the value of the labour that is currently lost to the disease. And such a narrow weighing of benefits and costs probably understates the upside. For one thing, there could be collateral economic gains if CFS research leads to a better understanding of other debilitating conditions.
There is also a less concrete but ultimately more important motivation. Knowledge is a human good, and one of the virtues of the modern industrial economy is that it has created and paid for much more of this good. A deeper understanding of chronic fatigue syndrome would almost certainly add ever more, by developing a better idea of how the human body functions. Even if no cure is found, the knowledge itself is a worthy economic goal.
Tuesday, June 03, 2014
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
(NaturalNews) Mercury tests conducted on vaccines at the Natural News Forensic Food Lab have revealed a shockingly high level of toxic mercury in an influenza vaccine (flu shot) made by GlaxoSmithKline (lot #9H2GX). Tests conducted via ICP-MS document mercury in the Flulaval vaccine at a shocking 51 parts per million, or over 25,000 times higher than the maximum contaminant level of inorganic mercury in drinking water set by the EPA.(1)
The tests were conducted via ICP-MS using a 4-point mercury calibration curve for accuracy. Even then, the extremely high level of mercury found in this flu shot was higher than anything we've ever tested, including tuna and ocean fish which are known for high mercury contamination.
In fact, the concentration of mercury found in this GSK flu shot was 100 times higher than the highest level of mercury we've ever tested in contaminated fish. And yet vaccines are injected directly into the body, making them many times more toxic than anything ingested orally. As my previous research into foods has already documented, mercury consumed orally is easily blocked by eating common foods like strawberries or peanut butter, both of which bind with and capture about 90% of dietary mercury.
Here are the actual results of what we found in the influenza vaccine from GSK (lot #9H2GX):
Aluminum: 0.4 ppm
Mercury: 51 ppm
All tests were conducted via calibrated, high-end ICP-MS instrumentation as shown in these lab videos.
Doctors, pharmacists and mainstream media continue to lie about mercury in vaccines
As you take in the scientifically-validated fact that mercury exists at very high concentrations in flu vaccines, keep in mind that most doctors, pharmacists and members of the mainstream media continue to stage an elaborate lie that claims mercury has "already been removed from vaccines."
Never mind the fact that the use of mercury is admitted right on the package containing the vaccine vial. And now, Natural News has scientifically confirmed the mercury content of flu vaccines using high-end laboratory instrumentation. The existence of high mercury in flu shots is irrefutable.
Anyone who claims mercury has been removed from all vaccines is either wildly ignorant or willfully lying. And anyone who would knowingly allow themselves to be injected with mercury is probably already a victim of the kind of brain damage well known to be caused by mercury.
Insert admits "no controlled trials"
Shockingly, the package insert for this flu shot readily admits the vaccine has never been subjected to scientific clinical trials:
"There have been no controlled trials adequately demonstrating a decrease in influenza disease after vaccination with Flulaval," the package insert claims in tiny text (that no one reads).
This is printed right on the insert, yet no one in the mainstream media will ever report this astonishing admission. This statement, all by itself, is a confession that flu shot marketing is a fraud.
Across the board, flu shots are heavily propagandized and promoted with the implication that they have zero risks while offering 100% protection. No one in the mainstream media ever questions this claim even though the package insert openly admits the claim is complete hokum and has never been subjected to scientific scrutiny.
No evidence of safety or effectiveness in pregnant women
But that's not all the insert admits. It also says:
"Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval have not been established in pregnant women, nursing mothers or children."
And yet everywhere you go in America, there's a Walgreens, CVS or Wal-Mart pharmacy promoting flu shots for pregnant women. Never mind the fact that flu shot safety has never been established in pregnant women, and never mind the obvious fact that you should never inject a pregnant women with mercury in the first place!
Who needs scientific proof when you've got the full propaganda of the media and the government to back you up? Anyone who dares question the scientific validity of flu shot safety for pregnant women is immediately attacked as being an opponent of all vaccines.
Apparently, the only requirement to be accepted by the vaccine community is to believe in medical fairy tales while abandoning all critical thinking and scientific skepticism. In the vaccine industry, genuine science is simply not allowed. No wonder two former Merck virologists filed a False Claims Act with the federal government, accusing the company of knowingly fabricating its vaccine efficacy data to trick the FDA.
Never proven safe or effective in children, either
Flu shots are heavily promoted for children, right alongside mumps and measles vaccines. But it turns out flu shots are never scientifically tested for safety or efficacy in children.
Check out what the insert for this vaccine directly admits:
"Safety and effectiveness of Flulaval in pediatric patients have not been established."
It's right there in black and white... an open admission. Yet flu shots are aggressively marketed to parents and children as if they were Tic-Tacs. The real beauty of the entire vaccine industry scam is that no scientific evidence is required! You don't have to have any proof, all you have to do is believe in vaccines as a matter of faith.
Never tested for cancer risk
Do flu shots cause cancer? The honest, scientific answer is that these shots are never tested for that. As the insert readily admits:
"Flulaval has not been evaluated for carcinogenic or mutagenic potential, or for impairment of fertility."
Believe it or not, the Flulaval vaccine also warns that no one should be given this shot if they've already received another flu shot at some previous time:
"Do not administer Flulaval to anyone... following previous administration of any influenza vaccine."
And yet, amazingly, people are encouraged to get flu shots year after year, even though the package insert directly warns against anyone taking a series of influenza vaccines.
Admission that flu shots contain formaldehyde and sodium deoxycholate
The same insert that admits this vaccine has never been proven safe in children or pregnant women also openly admits that it contains neurotoxic chemicals.
Per the insert, each dose of Flulaval contains up to 25 mcg of formaldehyde (a neurotoxin) and up to 50 mcg of sodium deoxycholate.
This is on top of the 25 mcg of mercury you'll get in every dose. And remember, this is mercury that's injected directly into your body, so you absorb 100% of this mercury (unlike mercury you eat, where most of it sticks to food fibers and is transported out of your body).
Total admission that flu shots cause seizures, convulsions and Guillian-Barre syndrome
Ever wonder what all these toxic chemicals and heavy metals cause in humans? Flu shots vaccines, it turns out, are already known to cause a huge number of devastating health effects.
Predictably, there is a massive disinfo campaign across the mainstream media, Wikipedia, medical journals and government propaganda agencies (CDC, FDA, etc.) to pretend that flu shots have no risks whatsoever. Yet the insert that comes with the vaccine openly admits the flu shot has been linked with a long, frightening list of serious adverse effects. As this Flulaval insert says (see photo below):
"In addition to reports in clinical trials, the following adverse events have been identified during postapproval use of Flulaval...
If you take flu shots, you are being poisoned by quacks
The upshot of all this is that flu shots utterly lack any scientific evidence of safety of efficacy. We don't know if they work at all, in other words, and neither does the vaccine manufacturer. Neither do the doctors or medical staff who administer them. Flu vaccines are injected into people purely as a matter of blind faith in the very same companies that have already been convicted of felony crimes.
Trusting a flu shot made by a corporation of felons is a lot like trusting the purity of heroin you buy from a street dealer. Both flu shots and street heroin have at least one thing in common, by the way: neither has ever been tested for safety.
We also know that flu shots contain neurotoxic chemicals and heavy metals in alarming concentrations. This is irrefutable scientific fact. We also know that there is no "safe" form of mercury just like there is no safe form of heroin -- all forms of mercury are highly toxic when injected into the body (ethyl, methyl, organic, inorganic).
The only people who argue with this are those who are already mercury poisoned and thus incapable of rational thought. Mercury damages brain function, you see, which is exactly what causes some people to be tricked into thinking vaccines are safe and effective.
Technically, you'd have to be stupid to believe such a thing, as the vaccine insert directly tells you precisely the opposite.
Share this story, spread the truth
Share this story with everyone who needs to know the truth about flu vaccines. This message needs to get out. Every fact stated in this article is 100% true and verified. The quotes from the Flulaval package insert are on-the-record statements from GlaxoSmithKline.
And for the record, I am not an opponent of the theory of vaccination. What I'm against is the continued use of toxic heavy metals and chemicals in vaccines. I'm also opposed to the wildly fraudulent marketing of vaccines. If any other product were marketed with the same lies and deceptions as vaccines, they would be immediately charged with fraud and misrepresentation by the FTC. But somehow when the vaccine industry commits routine fraud, everybody pretends it isn't happening.
Even with all the marketing fraud taking place, if the vaccine manufacturers would stop poisoning the population with vaccine additives (by removing mercury, formaldehyde and other chemicals from their products), nearly all opposition to vaccines would rapidly disappear.
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS): The need of objective assessment, accurate diagnosis, and acknowledging biological and clinical subgroups. An Extract -
Although Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) are often considered to be synonyms, the diagnostic criteria for ME and CFS define distinct clinical entities.
Cognitive impairment, (muscle) weakness, circulatory disturbances, marked variability of symptoms, and, above all, post-exertional “malaise”: a long-lasting increase of symptoms after minor exertion, are distinctive symptoms of ME.
This latter phenomenon separates ME, a neuro-immune illness, from chronic fatigue (syndrome), other disorders and deconditioning. The introduction of the label “CFS”, but more importantly the diagnostic criteria for CFS have generated much confusion, mostly because chronic fatigue is a subjective and ambiguous notion.
CFS was redefined in 1994 into unexplained (persistent or relapsing) chronic fatigue, accompanied by at least four out of eight symptoms, e.g. headaches and unrefreshing sleep.
Since the diagnosis ME doesn’t require “fatigue” and post-exertional malaise and cognitive impairment are not obligatory for the diagnosis CFS, the criteria for ME and CFS define two different patient populations.
However, most of the research into ME and CFS in the last decades was based upon the multivalent CFS criteria, which define a heterogeneous patient group.
Due to the fact that fatigue and other symptoms are non-discriminative, subjective experiences, research has been hampered. Despite the use of subjective and ambiguous criteria and measures, research has established typical abnormalities in ME/CFS repetitively, e.g. immunological aberrations, oxidative and nitrosative stress, neurological anomalies, circulatory deficits and mitochondrial dysfunction.
After describing the context, including the controversy about the nature of ME and CFS, the diagnostic criteria, the etiology, the pathophysiology and presumed effective therapies (Cognitive Behavioral Therapy: CBT and Graded Exercise Therapy: GET), this article reviews the historical context of ME and CFS and the diagnostic criteria (Ramsay, Holmes, Fukuda and International Consensus Criteria) and substantiates why ME and CFS are two partially overlapping, partially disjoint clinical entities.
After stressing the importance of an accurate diagnosis, the article proposes various methods to assess characteristic symptoms objectively. Various authors have questioned the physiological nature of the symptoms and qualified ME/CFS as somatisation.
By using objective measures endless discussions due to using questionnaires and subjective measures can be avoided, e.g. with regard to the physiological origin of symptoms, the level of disability, and the proposed positive and/or negative effects of CBT and CGT in specific patient well-defined groups.
The article then summarizes various characteristic abnormalities which have been repeatedly observed in ME/CFS patients or substantial subgroups repeatedly and the potentially relevant clinical and biological subgroups.
The remainder of the article focuses on recommendations for improvements of patient care (assessment and diagnosis) and more effective research in the future.
To improve future research standards and patient care, it is crucial
* that patients with post-exertional “malaise” (ME) and “CFS” patients without post-exertional phenomena are acknowledged as two separate clinical and research entities;
* that typical symptoms of ME and CFS are assessed objectively as much as possible; by using repeated exercise tests (CPETs) and cognitive tests;
*that the diagnosis of ME and CFS in research and clinical practice is based upon accurate criteria;
* that well-defined clinical subgroups of ME and CFS, e.g., patients with orthostatic intolerance or patients with sudden-onset, are investigated in more detail;
*that biomarkers, e.g. immunological status in rest and after exertion, are used to distinguish and investigate biological subtypes in research;
*and that trials into the efficacy of therapies use objective measures of the clinical status and biomarkers to establish the effects of these therapies in ME or CFS patients or subgroups thereof impartially, e.g. by a (positive) change in the oxygen uptake at the anaerobic threshold and cognitive tests scores.
(NaturalNews) Today's custom is that if a person has a more serious health issue, conventional medicine is the unquestionable source of answers. Although results often appear to be helpful and "life-saving" on the surface, there often comes serious long-term damage that severely compromises quality of life. In that vein, here are three hospital procedures that can ruin long-term health.
Chemotherapy has been widely used with one or more cytotoxic drugs, with the expectation that this deadly poison will kill off rogue cancer cells and leave the patient with enough healthy cells to regain their health.
Researchers from the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center in Seattle, Washington, observed the effects of chemotherapy on healthy cell tissue and found that it damages the DNA of healthy non-cancerous cells which in turn causes them to produce molecules that in turn produces more cancer cells.
Even worse, they also found that a major side effect to this procedure is that cancer cells grow more virulent than they were before the treatment. As a result these "super" cancer cells no longer respond to chemotherapy, which means it becomes even more deadly.
Take a more natural approach to kill off cancerous cells, without severely damaging the body, and look to eliminate all forms of sugar.
Vaccines have become a heavy debate that has left many people wondering whether vaccinations are the panacea to all the dreaded illnesses we can contract, or simply a poisonous injection that has little effectiveness compared to a healthy and holistic lifestyle.
Recently, shocking statements were noted on the package insert of the "Diphtheria and Tetanus DTaP Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed" (also known as the Tripedia vaccine) that stated that this vaccine had not been evaluated for its "carcinogenic or mutagenic potentials or impairment of fertility."
It was also noted "adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting."
However, some may believe that vaccine side effects are worth the long-term immunity they provide against infectious disease, as opposed to building up natural immunity. Barbara Loe Fisher, president and co-founder of the National Vaccine Information Center, explains the error in that thinking:
"Whereas natural recovery from many infectious diseases usually stimulates lifetime immunity, vaccines only provide temporary protection and most vaccines require 'booster' doses to extend vaccine-induced artificial immunity."
So to maintain that artificial immunity, people are often subject to additional injections full of dangerous preservatives and agents, which puts their long-term health at more risk.
Take a more natural immune building approach by increase immune building foods and herbs and getting plenty of vitamin D, while reducing and eliminating processed foods, refined sugar, alcohol, and glutinous grains.
Prescription antibiotics are perhaps the most widely used form of medication, and have saved the lives of many with deadly bacterial infections. However, much like chemotherapy, antibiotics do not distinguish between good and bad, and as a result wipes out all bacteria in its path.
With more than 100 trillion good bacteria in the body (10x more than cells) that play a critical role in overall health and well-being, killing them is not an effective answer to maintain good health. In fact, destroying those helpful bacteria will slowly but surely destroy digestive and immune function, which can then result in severe complications like Candida and cancer.
Look into more natural antibiotics like garlic, colloidal silver, oil of oregano, Echinacea, and manuka honey.
In October 2013 evidence was collated that disputed – indeed disproved – Professor Sir Simon Wessely’s long-held belief that disorders including ME/CFS, fibromyalgia, Gulf War Syndrome and interstitial cystitis are but different parts of the same “elephant”, the “elephant” being a functional somatic disorder: “Many of these syndromes are dignified by their own case definition and body of research….We question this orthodoxy and ask whether these syndromes represent specific diagnostic entities, or are they rather more like the elephant to the blind man – simply different parts of a larger animal?” (Lancet 1999:354:936-939). The article also provided evidence that Wessely was equally wrong about the Camelford drinking water catastrophe (Professor Sir Simon Wessely -- Right or Wrong? http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Right-or-Wrong.htm ).
Whilst some internet commentators question the benefit of re-visiting the past and wish only to move onwards, others hold the view that dismissal of the damage done to sick people by the wrongful ascription of a mental health label to a physical disorder hinders proper understanding and prevents similar damage from being repeated in the future, since nothing constructive has been learned from the unnecessary iatrogenic suffering and no-one has been held accountable for it.
With this in mind and with the emergence of further autopsy evidence, it is timely to reconsider the enormity of the wrong perpetrated by Wessely upon the people of Camelford (a small town in Cornwall), since the whole issue has once again surfaced and deserves global attention.
It will be recalled that in July 1988 residents of Camelford were poisoned when 20 tonnes of aluminium sulphate were accidentally pumped into their drinking water supply; seven people died; 25,000 suffered serious health effects and 40,000 animals were affected (Dr Douglas Cross: The Ecologist:1990:20:6:228-233).
In 1995, Wessely and his co-psychiatrist Anthony David wrote an editorial in The Journal of Psychosomatic Research entitled “The Legend of Camelford: Medical Consequences of a Water Pollution Accident” in which they said: “Further health monitoring of the population at risk was considered…unnecessary…since the results would ‘be heavily influenced by people’s fears of long term effects’ ” and they noted that symptoms being reported “were put down to anxiety”. David and Wessely commented that: “Psychological ‘damage’ can lead to successful compensation claims (and) it was clear that at Camelford a physical attribution was required by sufferers”. They concluded: “We suggest that the most likely explanation of the Camelford findings is that the perception of normal and benign somatic symptoms (physical and mental) by both subjects and health professionals was heightened and subsequently attributed to an external, physical cause such as poisoning….It is probable that among those afflicted are a few individuals with pre-existing somatisation or abridged somatisation disorders…which were then diverted to fall in line with the prevailing complaints of the affected population….Future investigations of environmental incidents should recall that social and cultural factors are as important as medical ones”.
That same year the BMJ published a “re-assessment” of Wessely’s conclusions (Still waters. 5th August 1995:311:395); it found that “mass hysteria was largely responsible for the furore”.
Trump sets out the evidence that dead villagers have been found to have had high levels of aluminium in their brain, suffering early onset dementia and a relatively early death.
As Trump says: “It was the worst case of mass poisoning in British history. The effects were noticed within 90 minutes and included diarrhoea and vomiting, severe joint aches, and blistering. Hands and lips stuck together. Hair turned green, fingernails blue”.
Trump exposes yet more aluminium-linked deaths than were previously known about and sets out factual evidence obtained at autopsy by Christopher Exley, Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry at Keele University, who found abnormally high levels of aluminium per gram of dry tissue in samples from Camelford residents.
Professor Exley noted that a finding of more than one microgram of aluminium per gram of dry tissue was “a little unusual”, and that samples from deceased Camelford residents were significantly high, with one such sample being more than 94 micrograms per gram of dry tissue.
At the time, scientists found levels of aluminium in the drinking water of Camelford to be between 500 and 3,000 times the maximum judged acceptable under EU law.
In his article, Trump considers numerous cases who were affected, including the case of one of the deceased who had undergone tests, scans and biopsies while still alive which showed high levels of aluminium in his blood and bones and which caused the protein plaque deposits that led to his early death from dementia. The man developed epilepsy and long before the onset of dementia, he suffered constant memory loss, kidney problems, skin complaints, gum disease, ear infections and brittle bones. The blood flow in his brain was also restricted.
As Trump makes clear, in 1988 the privatisation of the water industry was looming and Camelford was a major embarrassment. In 2001 the then Environment Minister, Michael Meacher, said that the issue had “become a tug of war between the truth and an attempt to silence the truth”.
Wessely’s part in the dismissal of such devastating suffering as mere “perception” and his confident assertions that there was no evidence of long-term adverse effects on health as a consequence of the drinking water contamination should not be under-estimated when considering the Camelford catastrophe.
Should he not at last admit that he was wrong and publicly apologise?
A meta-analysis including 530,525 people, partly funded by the British Heart Foundation, and published in the Annals of Internal Medicine has just come to this conclusion:
Conclusion: Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats 1.
Or to put it another way, there is no evidence that saturated fat consumption has anything, whatsoever, to do with causing heart disease, or strokes. Once again I get to say ‘I told you so.’ Ah, the four most satisfying words in the English language. That is, when arranged in that particular order.
So, eat butter, drink milk, and throw away the horrible sugar-loaded low fat yoghurt. Go to France and enjoy the highest saturated fat diet in Europe and you, too, can enjoy the French rate of heart disease. Yes, of course, the lowest in Europe.
But now what happens? You see, the entire edifice of the cholesterol hypothesis is held together by two links in a chain. Link one is that saturated fat consumption raises cholesterol levels. Link two is that raised cholesterol levels then cause heart disease.
Various ‘experts’ have simplified this to the very simple equation:
A (saturated fat in the diet) > B (high cholesterol levels) > C (heart disease)
This is the cholesterol hypothesis, or the lipid hypothesis, and it has driven medical thinking for the last sixty years.
I have had it painstakingly explained to me, by very clever people, exactly how saturated fat raises cholesterol levels. Indeed, you will find ‘evidence’ for this almost universally accepted fact in literally thousands of clinical studies. Here is what Wikipedia has to say on the matter
‘There are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and the mass occurrence of cardiovascular disease. The relationships are accepted as causal 2.’
Okay, let us accept that eating saturated fat does raise cholesterol levels. However, if consumption of saturated fat does not increase the rate of heart disease then….. Then raised cholesterol levels can have nothing whatsoever to do with causing heart disease. Just keep chasing the implications of that statement around in your head for a while.
So what happens now? We now have a cholesterol/lipid hypothesis that just had its head blown off. Yet, it still continues to wander about, unaware that it is actually dead.
As everyone knows you can chop the head off a chicken and it can wander about for years. I was also informed, when I was an open-mouthed child, that you could shoot a dinosaur through the head and it would continue to blunder about for some time, the rest of its body blissfully unaware that it was actually dead.
Well, the cholesterol hypothesis has just been shot dead, but I suspect it will continue to rampage about, stomping on puny humans for many years, before it finally keels over and admits that it is dead.
But I say, farewell Cholsterolosaurus. You are now a deceased hypothesis. Gone to meet your maker. You just don’t know it yet. Because the people that believe in you do not understand logic.