George Monbiot on ME/CFS, PACE, BPS and Long Covid

I think the "Interested in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Research and Care" may just be a categorisation made by the "TheyWorkForYou" website that just indicates a general thrust of his Parliamentary questions.

Running quick Scopus and PubMed searches yields no publications about ME/CFS (although he did do his PhD - about decision-making capacity in schizophrenia - at the epicentre of psychosomatics, the Psychological Medicine group at Kings; link to the thesis). Relevant biography:

bs1.jpg
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
Sbag said:
Maybe the Gibson enquiry needs to be revisited. It took place when attitudes to ME were very psychological in nature. It would be really interesting to see it done again now that all those theories have been overturned.
Click to expand...
As I understand it the Gibson Enquiry was just set up by one MP, and had no official status. If anyone wants to discuss it, we probably need a new thread.
If there is to be an enquiry with any teeth, it needs to be officially set up by the government.
 
Relatively recently there was discussion here of the Gibson Enquiry with a link to their report and noting the fact that the bulk of the evidence is no longer available?extant?

I always struggle to find things and have not worked out which thread it was under.

Added - here is a thread on the Gibson Inquiry https://www.s4me.info/threads/unite...-causes-and-treatment-2006.20058/#post-337745
however I think we have discussed it more recently as I render discussion of Wesley’s off the record submission which was not made accessible to the public.
 
Last edited:
Can someone explain to me exactly what a "public inquiry" means in the UK? Is this a specific form of government investigation or is it just a generic term meaning someone needs to look into this? In the US, we have various things that might fall under the broad umbrella of "public inquiry" but I'm not sure what it means in UK context.
 
A public inquiry is a formal process set up by ministers but that is independent of the government. I think it can either be on either a statutory basis (with legal powers to compel testimony and obtain documents) or a non-statutory inquiry (a formal process but without such powers). For example there are ongoing inquiries into the COVID-19 response, Lucy Letby, and the Post Office scandal.

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/article/explainer/public-inquiries

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_public_inquiries_in_the_United_Kingdom
 
Trish said:
I'd be wary of a UK ME/CFS public enquiry while the likes of Wessely, Sharpe, White, Chalder, Moss-Morris et al are still influential. The desire for 'balance' can scupper deep understanding of the problem, and eminence over-ride evidence.
Click to expand...
Yes they may need to slide further into disgrace before this would be less of an issue. Like wise treatment protocols would need to be agreed upon, otherwise it’s so fine to still be same same.



Also government appoints the lead for political affinity with themselves and their ideology and policy programs so it is independent ish only.
 
Ash said:
Yes they may need to slide further into disgrace before this would be less of an issue. Like wise treatment protocols would need to be agreed upon, otherwise it’s so fine to still be same same.



Also government appoints the lead for political affinity with themselves and their ideology and policy programs so it is independent ish only.
Click to expand...

Often public enquiries are headed up by judges and am I correct that a certain medical knight participates in the appointing of judges?
 
The other problem with statutory inquiries is that, while thorough, they have a reputation for being extraordinarily slow and very expensive - while other European countries have long ago finished theirs, our COVID inquiry is likely to continue into 2026, has apparently already cost around £94m and may well cost twice that when completed.

While any reasonable inquiry would have to conclude that patients had been badly treated the lack of hard evidence means that many aspects could well be framed in terms of ongoing clinical debate and dispute.
Peter Trewhitt said:
Often public enquiries are headed up by judges and am I correct that a certain medical knight participates in the appointing of judges?
Click to expand...
SW is listed as a Lay Commissioner of the Judicial Appointments Commission.
 
Trish said:
I'd be wary of a UK ME/CFS public enquiry while the likes of Wessely, Sharpe, White, Chalder, Moss-Morris et al are still influential. The desire for 'balance' can scupper deep understanding of the problem, and eminence over-ride evidence.
Click to expand...
completely agree, I think an inquiry before we either get rid of the old guard, or we have absolutely rock solid evidence of biological abnormality and well understood causal pathways and even treatment, would be disastrous. It will just get framed as a scientific/clinical debate, eminence will rule, and when we finally do have evidence the appetite for an inquiry will have disappeared - 'nah we did that already & nobody to be at fault, harumph, all very unfortunate, nothing to see here' etc
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom