13th Invest in ME Research International ME Conference - 1st June 2018

SEID (current clinical diagnostic criteria in US) is not technically a diagnosis of exclusion. This change was made by the IOM to get more patients diagnosed.

But no one seems to be studying whether adopting SEID criteria has increased the rate of misdiagnosis. I doubt that's even possible to study today.

Ah sorry! I did not know this. Thanks for clearing it up :)! Fukuda, ICC and CCC are though right?

Also, bonus question. What about the original ME diagnosis by Ramsay? That was not a diagnosis of exclusion, right? Or was it :P?
 
Ah sorry! I did not know this. Thanks for clearing it up :)! Fukuda, ICC and CCC are though right?
I've only been diagnosed medically with SEID ME/CFS, so I'm not 100% sure about the others. But a patient can be diagnosed with SEID even if they have other fatiguing conditions.
IOM report said:
A thorough history, physical examination, and targeted workup are necessary to determine a differential diagnosis and are often sufficient for diagnosis of ME/CFS (SEID).
 
@Sunshine3 Ive spent a little time in mitochondrial disease forums and I quickly realised that the symptoms people describe and the crashes are often very hard to separate from how people describe ME... meeting ICC/CCC criteria could absolutely be primary mito disease for some and I’m shocked it’s not the 1st thing on the possible differential diagnoses for ME.
I queried mito disease with paediatrician. I got a very weird look and was told that it only applied to very all children (!)
 
I queried mito disease with paediatrician. I got a very weird look and was told that it only applied to very all children (!)
This was basically the response I had from a doctor when I brought it up, awareness seems limited to very significant congenital disorders.

The doctor told me they weren't aware of anyone in the UK that investigated mito disease in adults. By chance I was later referred to a neuromuscular disease clinic to exclude Myasthenia Gravis, I casually said I had wondered about Mito disease but repeated what the other doctor had said. I was quickly put in my place, apparently we have a world-leading Mito disease lab! Makes me despair...
 
By chance I was later referred to a neuromuscular disease clinic to exclude Myasthenia Gravis, I casually said I had wondered about Mito disease but repeated what the other doctor had said. I was quickly put in my place, apparently we have a world-leading Mito disease lab! Makes me despair...

It's my experience with the NHS that nobody knows what specialist stuff exists, even in the same town or city. You'd think they'd have some sort of directory, but apparently, they don't.
 
spotted these posted at the other place:

Invest in ME Research Charity
It would be ironic if others took all that IiMER and its supporters have started and made it their own - retaining influence, serving different interests, and staying in a position of power.

Ironic if some consortium or some collaborative sought lots of support for its own make-over and reached an agreement with another group to create its own centre, perhaps including a large, mega project of some sort as part of a planned bid for funding.

Ironic if the MRC then put out a call for a centre of excellence for all to apply, yet set up purely to satisfy a predetermined bid from said consortium/collaborative.

Ironic if that consortium/collaborative, now having received MRC funds and recognised as a “centre”, were to attempt to align and join with the NIH centres recently funded.

Ironic if this were all announced at an upcoming conference with the main protagonists presenting.

A nice coincidence if all of this followed some sort of parliamentary event about ME - and then there would be the perfect news story.

Imagine this –
- a parliamentary debate on ME which calls for more research

- the government “listens”

- the MRC steps up to answer the call for more research (now
using the ever more ubiquitous term ‘biomedical’) and calls for applications for a centre

- a consortium or collaborative – joining with a biobank facility –
responds to the call from the MRC and applies, not having to do much work because the MRC call would almost seem to have been made for them

- the consortium/collaborative’s application is accepted (despite
competition from an existing centre, that is already performing research with international collaboration and support from the charitable sector and patients)

- this consortium/collaborative – now a centre - then proceeds to
link up to NIH centres (with much of the groundwork already having been done)

- What about the patients in all this?
Ironically, there will surely be some big scientific media centre on hand to sell this to the main media streams, academia, the public and anyone else who will pick up the soundbites

Everyone comes out of this looking good, proactive, concerned for patients, reborn.
The stars are once more aligned for another three to five years.

Such a scenario would be ironic.

Could it happen?
"From even the greatest of horrors, irony is seldom absent"

Invest in ME Research Charity
At our conference in London last week it was plain to see a hive of activity occurring – divorced from the main IIMEC13 event itself.

It was noticed that certain individuals (some deciding to attend our conference for the first time – having even ignored our previous invitations) were engaged in small huddles and little meetings during breaks, and even during lectures, busily planning.

It was the first time that we had representation at the conference from NIHR – yet the NIHR representation declined attendance at the Colloquium.

There was even a person (who had been funding research) who just turned up at the event because, it seems, he had been told (not by us) that he could just arrive for a meeting with one of the delegates who was heading these huddles (the conference was full and we had a waiting list - as indicated on the web site).

The charity had previously invited the CEO of the MRC to come to our conference - but the invitation was declined.

Yet all of the above people (as far as we know) were invited and attended a select dinner after the conference (not the one that had long been arranged by the charity) along with a number of others.

Also attending that dinner were a number of speakers from our conference who had also been invited (let us not use the term “poached”).

There were other speakers from our conference who were invited but they elected to accept the earlier invitation to IiMER’s post-conference event instead.

We will wait and see what transpires.

If the MRC (or another body such as NIHR) do open up a call for a centre of excellence then we can only hope that it will be truly open, truly transparent and not already having a pre-determined result – selecting an application from the heart of the establishment.

It would be ironic if the same people/organisations, who have continually ignored, diminished and dismissed all of IiMER efforts over the years,

and who have never supported Invest in ME Research in the efforts that the charity has made/is making to develop a Centre of Excellence hub (even stating a CoE would never happen),

and who have never supported the charity’s efforts to create international collaborations such as EMERG and the other links that have been established,

if these same people/organisations should then go on to gather all of the spoils from others’ work and ideas.

The fact that IiMER’s ideas might be taken, years late, and rehashed into a consortium which morphs from a discredited genomics study, carrying a lot of BPS baggage, into a biobank centre “of excellence” smacks more to us of self-interest and retention of influence than it does the benefit of mankind.

Irony:
a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects and is often wryly amusing as a result.
can anyone tell us what this is all about?

eta: I got them directly from IiMEs FB page
 
Last edited:
How ironic would it be if, having fought for years against the stranglehold that the BPSers had on all aspects of ME in the UK, IiME failed to recognise the fact that, in essence, they had 'won' and continued their fight, only this time against the new status quo?

(No, I don't think the fight has been 'won' yet but I think that some important battles have been won that allows us to advance forward. I'm just concerned that IiME, being so focused on their individual path, don't see that.)
 
I think we should wait and see before being critical of Iime. We do not know what it was that they witnessed, or who was involved.

There certainly seems to have been some presumptuous behaviour and a lack of good manners, which no doubt contributed to the impression formed.
 
How ironic would it be if, having fought for years against the stranglehold that the BPSers had on all aspects of ME in the UK, IiME failed to recognise the fact that, in essence, they had 'won' and continued their fight, only this time against the new status quo?

I think this is fair comment.

I wish I could enlighten Trish but I am not in a position to do so beyond saying that there is nothing very new here. Things are changing for the better, more despite the political manoeuvring than because of it. It is a pity if people feel aggrieved and feel the need to cast doubt on others' motives where it is inappropriate.
 
How ironic would it be if, having fought for years against the stranglehold that the BPSers had on all aspects of ME in the UK, IiME failed to recognise the fact that, in essence, they had 'won' and continued their fight, only this time against the new status quo?

(No, I don't think the fight has been 'won' yet but I think that some important battles have been won that allows us to advance forward. I'm just concerned that IiME, being so focused on their individual path, don't see that.)

I think IiME will be in a good position to know when the battle is won but it's a good idea to ask ourselves how we will know.

From my position this springs to mind (but sure to be more)

1. The current science around ME is taught in medical school and older doctors are re-educated
2. We have one common diagnostic criteria agreed
3. Patients have access to a NHS doctor who accepts it as a physical illness and tries to treat symptoms on the same footing as other diseases
4. Research is carried out on well defined populations and is funded at the level of and with the urgency patients deserve
5. Doctors want to specialise in ME and to carry out research on it
6. Medical journals will publish research without a drama and of good quality
7. The SMC has doctors knowledgeable about the disease and accepting that it is physical on their spokesperson list
8. Patients can get medical treatment at home if housebound
9. Patients can get the level of state benefits or insurance payouts that they are entitled to
10. Patients can attend NHS hospitals without being automatically labeled as malingering or mentally ill
11. Quack treatments get a critical appraisal in the press and by medics
12. Doctors who mistreat ME patients stop getting honoured and given awards
13. UK bodies of doctors stop lobbying to have WHO codes changed to psych ones
14. The MUS and Functional syndromes as an idea (and all the new incarnations of these) die out
15. The NICE guidelines are changed to something evidence based and reflecting current knowledge

I think we have got a long way to go before any of this happens sadly.
 
can anyone tell us what this is all about?
I have a fair idea as I've been following events since 2010 when IiME(R) published their proposal to establish a Centre of Excellence for ME. The comments you quoted here follow from their comments on their link to their webpage for the Centre of Excellence, which gives some context.

I also loosely followed events around the forming of the CMRC in 2013, their initially failed bid for mainstream funding for their MEGA project and the recent regrouping, so that joins a few more dots. I've never been to their conference, but this is a comment by someone who was there.

"As a bit of an interloper and someone who doesn’t live in the UK, I saw these unholy alliances playing out over the two days. Not a pleasant sight. However what it did do for me was strengthen my resolve to support the work of IiME even more so. IiME have been the only players that have consistently stood by ME patients, never flinching from the truth, never selling out their supporters, always willing to put their head above the parapet, doing incredible work at bringing the international research community together and all the while keeping their eyes focused on getting the best possible biological research for pwme. Please continue to plough your own furrow."
 
It is a pity if people feel aggrieved and feel the need to cast doubt on others' motives where it is inappropriate.

It does read to be a bit underhanded though - are you sure the doubt is inappropriate?

If what is implied is true, I can understand where iimer are coming from.

Sounds like some people piggy backed iimerc having previously ignored them, and now plan to steal a bit of thunder.

I guess we'll have to wait to hear more, but in the absence of more information I would remain suspicious.
 
I guess a positive interpretation might be that if they feel they have to imitate what you are doing you should be flattered

but I can understand how it would be annoying if thunder is being stolen
 
How ironic would it be if, having fought for years against the stranglehold that the BPSers had on all aspects of ME in the UK, IiME failed to recognise the fact that, in essence, they had 'won' and continued their fight, only this time against the new status quo?

(No, I don't think the fight has been 'won' yet but I think that some important battles have been won that allows us to advance forward. I'm just concerned that IiME, being so focused on their individual path, don't see that.)

At some point, advocacy must shift from destruction and opposition to construction and collaboration.
 
It does read to be a bit underhanded though - are you sure the doubt is inappropriate?
If what is implied is true, I can understand where iimer are coming from.
Sounds like some people piggy backed iimerc having previously ignored them, and now plan to steal a bit of thunder.
I guess we'll have to wait to hear more, but in the absence of more information I would remain suspicious.

Certainly for the people that matter in terms of having a chance of doing something useful for ME, I think IiME's comments are out of order. If the political landscape is moving on and a number of researchers are in London then it makes sense and is right for PWME for researchers to talk collaboration in whatever way they want. There is a debt of gratitude to IiME for bringing people together and paying their expenses but that does not tie anyone to any loyalties that override setting up the most appropriate collaborations. It is exactly what we want to avoid and what IiME have themselves been complaining about. If IiME are entitled to select who comes to their meeting then others are entitled to select who comes to a dinner.

There has been something strange about this IiME meeting. It is odd that the one PhD student they have part-funded who has published data was not invited to attend and present at the young investigator meeting, as far as I can see. Other groups seem to have not received invitations because of connections to third parties of no fault of their own.

Nobody is stealing anything from IiME because IiME do not own anybody - nobody does in science. I have in the past respected IiME's firm position on not mixing with poor science but this time I think they have got things wrong and risk causing unnecessary strife.
 
@Jonathan Edwards you say that a particular student wasn't invited by IiMER to their event "as far as I can see". I'm certain that is not the case. I don't know which groups seem to you "to have not received invitations because of connections to third parties of no fault of their own", but perhaps that's not a correct assumption either. I'm sure you could easily check the facts with IiMER, otherwise you're casting doubt on their actions and motivations, which is what you seem to be worried that they are doing, so that doesn't seem to me to make sense.
 
@Jonathan Edwards you say that a particular student wasn't invited by IiMER to their event "as far as I can see". I'm certain that is not the case. I don't know which groups seem to you "to have not received invitations because of connections to third parties of no fault of their own", but perhaps that's not a correct assumption either. I'm sure you could easily check the facts with IiMER, otherwise you're casting doubt on their actions and motivations, which is what you seem to be worried that they are doing, so that doesn't seem to me to make sense.

I have facts at my disposal that I would prefer not to have to air here. I don't want to name names of people who have been treated badly in my judgment.
 
Back
Top Bottom