1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Forward Me Group Minutes - 31st October 2017

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Moosie, Dec 4, 2017.

  1. Moosie

    Moosie Established Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    196
  2. Andy

    Andy Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    That looks very encouraging, let's hope that we see the progress that we need. Shame that Mark Baker is retiring before the process completes.
     
  3. Andy

    Andy Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    From the minutes
     
    Skycloud, BurnA, TiredSam and 3 others like this.
  4. Moosie

    Moosie Established Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    196
    A little further down -

    2.17 Prof Malcolm Hooper drew Prof Baker’s attention to his paper on ME. Prof Baker said he had received it. Prof Hooper said that the paper did not include a recent proposal to designate ME a somatic disorder. That needed to be stopped. Prof Baker commented that ME/CFS may need to be in a category of its own – not somatic or psychiatric.


    I looked but I couldn't find a frightened emoji.
     
  5. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    4,709
    Location:
    UK
    :nailbiting:
     
    TiredSam, Esther12, Barry and 2 others like this.
  6. Valentijn

    Valentijn Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    7,002
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I don't see any comments from the Royal College of General Practitioners in the stakeholder comments.

    This is not true. The royal College of Psychiatrists agreed with the proposal not to update the guideline ("Yes"), and said:
    The Royal College of Physicians endorsed the statement by the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

    This is completely unacceptable, as the Royal College of Physicians has shown itself to be highly biased in favor of a psychosomatic view of ME/CFS.

    This was their response regarding an update to the guidelines:
    This was the response of the Association of British Neurologists to which they refer regarding an update:

    This was the response of the Royal College of Psychiatrists to which they refer regarding an update:
    Reality doesn't seem to support what Mark Baker is saying. Or am I missing something? :confused:
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    Esperanza, Nellie, Scarecrow and 7 others like this.
  7. Valentijn

    Valentijn Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    7,002
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Mark Baker and NICE can go screw themselves if they think patients will continue to tolerate ME/CFS denialism, expressed by placing us in our own special psychosomatic/delusional category :mad:
     
  8. Adrian

    Adrian Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Location:
    UK
    I think that is why Baker's comments of the formation of the committee are particularly important. Sounds like he knows the guidelines are bad and they will remain bad if the committee is the same as before.

    Given their previous chair's 'training videos' pushing GET and her husband then I think no comments from the Royal College of General Practitioner is a big improvement.
     
    Esperanza and Trish like this.
  9. Moosie

    Moosie Established Member

    Messages:
    24
    Likes Received:
    196
    @Valentijn I’m afraid there are some comments from the Royal College of General Practitioners in the stakeholders consultation - bottom of page 89 down as RCGP.

    They answered ‘No’ to the question ‘Do you agree with the proposal not to update the guideline?’

    A taster of their reasons -

    “The guideline could be improved for primary care with more focus on the mental health aspects, which are hardly mentioned. The model is very bio-medical and should be amended to give more weight to the psychological and social elements.”
     
    Joh, Zombie Lurker, Skycloud and 8 others like this.
  10. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    536
    Likes Received:
    3,430
    I find it so hard to judge comments from UK Establishment figures, who can be pretty good at implying more than they say, and doing so in a way which is tailored to their audience.

    Could be worth looking at how the back pain guidelines were revised? There's a lot of quackery around back pain too.

    Oh... this is from last month on the changes to NICE guidelines:

    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/11/171115091753.htm

    PS: I think that much depends on how cautious they are in any recommendations, and their commitment to informed consent. Previously, it did seem that there was too great a promotion of pain killers, considering the available evidence, but if they've just replaced that with 'treatments' that only appear to be more effective than placebo because trial's cannot be properly blinded, that's a very worrying sign.

    Either there's an error in the minutes, or Hooper misused 'somatic' there, which means bodily/physical. Baker's response doesn't sound great.

    Overall, those minutes leave me feeling less hopeful about things.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2017
    Viola, Esperanza, Moosie and 4 others like this.
  11. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    635
    Likes Received:
    3,479
    Location:
    UK
    I'm always hopeful, but I do feel that the battle has only just begun. And to quote a film franchise

    "I have a very bad feeling about this"

    It will be interesting to see output from January's meeting to get a flavour of what we are up against.

    Even if they alter the guideline eventually just to remove GET that will be a big step forward (excuse the pun). I hope they also write in clear wording that the disease has no relevance to a psychiatric disorder to help re-educate medical professionals. I doubt that will happen though.

    There's no treatment yet, but putting something in there about comorbid conditions would be useful to help patients get treatment for those rather than be ignored.

    Those are my 3 wish list items. I would like more but in the absence of any research into any viable treatment ...
     
  12. Valentijn

    Valentijn Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    7,002
    Location:
    Netherlands
    Oh, I didn't search for that much of an abbreviation :p Full comment was:

    Whoever authored their comment for NICE was probably one or more of the authors whose name appears in all of the papers which they are promoting in their comment. Alison Wearden and Sarah Peters are not members of the RCGP, but Carolyn Chew-Graham and Christopher Dowrick are.​
     
    Esther12, Moosie and Trish like this.
  13. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    4,709
    Location:
    UK
    This just looks like madness from Prof Baker. What's his evidence that ME/CFS is, of all diseases, neither of these things?
     
    Skycloud, Viola, Esperanza and 7 others like this.
  14. Valentijn

    Valentijn Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    1,522
    Likes Received:
    7,002
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I think he wants them to remain bad, or to get worse. Otherwise he wouldn't be lying about the statements of the neurologists and the various Royal Colleges. The one example he listed of a changed guideline was one where the subject became substantially less biomedical and more psychosocial.

    This part reeks of pandering to the audience (you'll be our special friends on the inside). I'm also concerned with the specification of "lay people" versus "patients," since lay people are supposed to lack specific knowledge about a given subject. I don't want a patient lay person at the table - I want a patient expert who understands the science and politics at the table:
     
  15. Andy

    Andy Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    In regard to the "not somatic or psychiatric" quote of Mark Bakers, I have sent this email to Forward ME.
     
    Daisybell, Skycloud, Viola and 13 others like this.
  16. Trish

    Trish Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    Location:
    UK
    This is seriously worrying. We cheer when we hear we are going to get new guidelines, only to find the GP's want it to go even more BPS...
    :banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead::banghead:

    I can't help wondering if it's all part of the project to throw all ill-understood conditions in the MUS dustbin with only poorly trained CBT practitioners or on-line 'therapy' available to us. All about money saving, and denying the reality of our illness so they can deny us proper medical care and disability benefits.

    :bawling::bawling::bawling::bawling:
     
  17. Andy

    Andy Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    942
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    I obviously can't know for certain but I would imagine that by "lay person" he means "a patient (or carer) and not part of the established medical profession in the UK". I was going to say he meant "a patient", and I think in his mind he probably does, but being part of the established medical profession in the UK doesn't prevent you from developing ME obviously.
     
    Skycloud, Esperanza and Moosie like this.
  18. Adrian

    Adrian Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    775
    Likes Received:
    4,063
    Location:
    UK
    I've no idea what is in his mind. But the thing that seems really important is the way the review mechanism is set up and who is pulled onto the committee. This is what needs to be analysed/commented on and influenced. Then there is the evidence that gets looked at. My feeling is that there is very little to look at.

    I wonder if the latest BMJ guidelines (which I haven't read) may be influential or could be used as such as well as the IoM report. My feeling is if they diverge from something like the IoM report then that is something to target.

    Perhaps we should have some sort of shadow review?
     
    Skycloud, Valentijn, Cheshire and 3 others like this.
  19. Sasha

    Sasha Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    757
    Likes Received:
    4,709
    Location:
    UK
    Thanks, Andy. I think that's important.
     
  20. Trish

    Trish Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    837
    Likes Received:
    6,663
    Location:
    UK
    That's a very good e-mail @Andy. We have been stuck with the 'not a real illness' psychosomatic labelling for 30 years. It looks horribly like that's where he's heading again. It is good to try to pin this down.
     

Share This Page