Patients with severe ME/CFS need hope and expert multidisciplinary care, 2025, Miller et al

This is actually a very weird paragraph, as @rvallee says. It makes one wonder who approached who to say what. This does not sound like Miller, and is presumably slotted in by Pederson. But if Miller was approached why does he go to Symington, Garner and Pederson. It seems more likely that garner and Pederson wanted to make a point about the enlightened state of Scandinavia and got someone to collar Miller to write for the BMJ as the local man. Pretty much like peers advertising their crypto firms in parliament I suppose.
Notably, the Danish are hopefully moving away from this approach sooner rather than later. And they obviously do not mention Fink’s ties to the insurance industry and how that parallells what happened in the UK as well.
 
I may have missed something but didn’t Fiona Symington state she had EDS, Fibromyalgia and Chronic Pain Syndrome. Paul Garner had a post infective fatigue state allegedly that stopped within 18 months? All a bit irrelevant to ME/CFS I think. Hopefully the reader would know that but still a pretty depressing article all the same.
 
Same old, same old.

Alastair Miller was told 20 years ago that the CFS therapy service he referred pts over to had stopped GET. He never stopped referring incorrectly to pts that they needed GET. Strange man.

As part of the CFS service in Liverpool he was only involved in diagnosis. He had no involvement or oversight of the CFS therapy service. No clue how he thinks he has any expertise in managing anyone with ME, let alone severe ME.

When I gave a lecture along with Malcolm Hooper about ME at the Liverpool Medical Institute, at the end of the lectures, he left the auditorium dropping his copy of the Canadian Consensus guidelines on the floor as he went.

And I could go on......

Not worth the effort.

He'll never change. He simply spouts what someone else tells him too. Embarrassing. Lazy.

No use giving these oddballs airspace.
 
This is actually a very weird paragraph, as @rvallee says. It makes one wonder who approached who to say what. This does not sound like Miller, and is presumably slotted in by Pederson. But if Miller was approached why does he go to Symington, Garner and Pederson. It seems more likely that garner and Pederson wanted to make a point about the enlightened state of Scandinavia and got someone to collar Miller to write for the BMJ as the local man. Pretty much like peers advertising their crypto firms in parliament I suppose.
My guess is that it's a bit of marketing and lobbying for their Oslo thing. They're trying to establish themselves as experts and point to their recent influence in some Scandinavian countries as the new model to follow, despite the fact that it's the same model that is still in effect in the UK.

Eternal rebranding is a major feature of psychosomatic ideology. So pushing the same old thing but pretending that it's a new approach is entirely on brand since no one ever actually looks. It's amazing how the medical profession behaves much the same as a bunch of local rubes who got scammed by a snake oil salesman, and always keep falling for the new salesman, which just happens to be the same old salesman with a different mustache.
 
No use giving these oddballs airspace.
Unfortunately, publications like the BMJ are always happy to play along, giving them all the platforming they ask for. Not that it changes anything. If anything, it will just make them look even more awful once there is a breakthrough.

BMJ to the left. RFK Jr to the right. Stuck in the middle with clowns and buffoons spewing tired nonsense. If only they could understand how much their lies led directly to the current "the truth doesn't exist" era. But they don't. Not at all.
 
There is something unspeakably sick about medical professionals saying that someone whose life was destroyed and ultimately ended as a consequence of listening to them actually just needed to listen to them harder and do what they said more.

These people are absolutely monstrous. I really hope Jonathan is right about that ship on the horizon, because I am sick to death of these callous delusional faith healers.
 
https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977

Opinion piece

Reframing beliefs about illness, along with specialist rehabilitation, can help recovery in people with severe ME/CFS, write Alastair Miller, Fiona Symington, Paul Garner, and Maria Pedersen

Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) affects around 250 000 people in the UK. Symptoms include fatigue, cognitive difficulties, pain, autonomic disturbances, disturbed sleep, and gastrointestinal upset. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) estimates that 25% of people with ME/CFS experience higher symptom levels and reduced function.1 These disabilities, and the patients’ belief that they won’t recover, can harm their mental wellbeing.2

Recovery is possible, but patients need help to find their path. A constructive starting point requires experienced practitioners to recognise that the evolved biological control systems responsible for maintaining safety can sometimes become dysregulated.34 This perspective offers patients a coherent explanatory model and, for some, a foundation for meaningful therapeutic progress.56

Guidance from NICE in 2021 on managing ME/CFS states that “recovery” may be only “a long period of remission” and that “many will need to adapt to living with ME/CFS.”7 For severe and very severe ME/CFS, the guidance states that patients may be in bed all day; may be unable to eat or digest; and may require a low stimulus environment in a dark, quiet room with little or no interaction because of hypersensitivity to light, sound, touch, movement, and smells.1 A government consultation with charities and patients about implementing the NICE guidance concluded that doctors must understand that people with severe symptoms need palliative care.7

Death directly from ME/CFS is unlikely. Neither somatic pathology nor specific physiological disturbance has been reliably and consistently identified.6 However, functional impairment may lead to malnutrition and dehydration—described as the cause of death of Maeve Boothby O’Neill, who died in 2021 at age 27.8 The coroner at her inquest highlighted that the NHS had no specialist units for severe ME/CFS.9 However, several specialist regional services for ME/CFS diagnose and treat mild and moderate presentations.

One specialist unit in the UK is at the Leeds National Inpatient Centre for Psychological Medicine. Some of the patients admitted have severe and complex ME/CFS. The Leeds centre delivers multidisciplinary inpatient care based on a biopsychosocial approach. This underpins much general practice in the UK, where symptoms and illness are considered not just in terms of the biology of a disease but also psychological (the influence of thoughts and emotions) and social dimensions (a person’s family, relationships, and societal beliefs).10

The Leeds unit employs highly trained and experienced staff in nursing, liaison psychiatry, occupational therapy, physiotherapy, cognitive behavioural therapy, dietetics, and pharmacy.11 Although their numbers are small, the improvements are seen across all groups of patients and are consistent. In nine of the past 10 years, everyone discharged had shown improvement, with over 50% each year reporting a major improvement, and the Care Quality Commission rated the service as “outstanding” on effectiveness and praised its holistic approach.12

Philosophical approach
An advantage of the Leeds model is that it avoids continuous sensory deprivation and total bed rest, both of which are likely to harm health.13 A literature review by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found no evidence that shielding patients from sensory stimuli benefited those with severe fatigue.14 A large international group of specialists in chronic fatigue conditions state that inactivity, bed rest, isolation, and sensory deprivation risk worsening symptoms and disability. They explain that fatigue after activity doesn’t necessarily mean that this is dangerous or indicate “a lack of energy in the body.” A gradual, controlled approach to increasing activity is an important part of rehabilitation.6

The philosophical approach behind the Leeds centre and the Oslo Chronic Fatigue Consortium’s statement overcomes the longstanding problem of separating “mental” and ”physical” illness.615 Specialists researching and treating these conditions view chronic fatigue conditions as a dysfunctional biological response orchestrated in the brain, influenced by expectations and conditioned responses.161718

Recent advances in neuroscience have enhanced our understanding of the link between the brain and physiologically based symptoms.181920 Subtle biological changes—such as increased sympathetic activity, decreased parasympathetic activity, reduced cortisol responsiveness to stress, and an activated immune system—can be attributed to a shift in the brain’s interpretation of the body’s condition.321 Emerging evidence suggests that psychoeducation about the stress response can help reduce hypervigilance and accentuation of the dysfunctional biological response.422

This approach across a range of conditions has been described for many years,23 underpinning national service planning in some countries. The Danish Health Care System for functional illness manages specialty specific functional somatic syndromes with common cognitive behavioural treatments, and patients can become self-supporting.24 In contrast, the UK is following an outdated model, leading NICE to disallow cognitive approaches to help recovery or bespoke programmes designed to increase activity.7

Inspiring hope, and changing the illness narrative, is helpful.25 The unproved narrative of a disease with no cure, improvement, or recovery can be harmful and is erroneous.6 Multidisciplinary, tailored approaches based on a biopsychosocial understanding can help patients and are urgently needed. Constructive dialogue between recovered and symptomatic patients, carers, and clinicians can help identify practical approaches to recovery.2627 Above all, we must remind patients, their relatives, and doctors that even those with severe ME/CFS can recover

I'm reading the report of the Leeds unit that they have linked to as reference 12: NICPM-Annual-Review-2020-21.pdf

, which is an utterly weird thing to refer to in itself for a number of reasons:

- hasn't it closed? and it must have been not long after this.

- there are lots of other reports maybe but I'm struggling to work out how to acces them and I'm unsure these either have the same name across the years or that they were 'outstanding', even in this report the 2018 one is noted on page 35 as having an overall rating of 'good'.

- the report itself has written all over it in bold red at multiple points even on certain sheets that this covers 2020-21 for a year's period when the pandemic meant the capacity was significantly reduced. 11 people were discharged, apparently less than normal 'because some were delayed' (gives me the creeps that whilst this could be for helpful reasons to the patient it could be that some weren't being helped given the therapy on offer and stayed longer) and 'because of the pandemic'.

- the report itself is weird. it reads like something written by the place itself rather than what I expected from an inspector. UPDATE: turns out it is just a report written by 2 staff members running the NICPM see a later comment.

- It is full of pie charts and bar charts about who is there - and given only 9 people consented to filling in this data, and it is stuff like their illness, secondary comorbidity and length of stay it feels incredibly identifiable as apart from the 5 who were lumped under CFS the others (4 people) were one line on other diagnoses like depression or the one with ptsd, one with ibs etc. same thing with the comorbidity where it says 'most' had these but then the chart shows 5 had 'nil' and then list eg a hearing impairment for one, diabetes for one other etc


Anyway, I'll update as I go so it doesn't get too long but my jaw dropped when you get to the page 12: clinical outcome measures
which lists what they measured this suppposed improvement of those discharged (mean stay looks like 6months) on:

1. Clinical Global Impression (Improvement) Scale - CGI-I

I couldn't believe it when I saw this given the recent paper (which I think is what the latest David Tuller trial by error is on) we've been discussing on some other 'research' which tries to claim the CGI is somehow better than the SF-36: Trial Report - Cost Utility of Specialist Physiotherapy for Functional Motor Disorder (Physio4FMD), 2025, Hunter, Stone, Carson, Edwards et al | Page 2 | Science for ME


the spiel in this 'annual review for the NICPM' report based on 9 patients (which then lists the 'recovery stats' from each year from 2009/10 onwards using it seems maybe on the CGI measure) is:
The NICPM provides a unique service for the broad range of people suffering with severe and complex MUS. Outcome measurement takes place routinely, providing evidence of clinical effectiveness in what is a highly selected group of very complex cases. Many of these cases have previously been found to be intractable or untreatable by other services, hence the referral to the NICPM. In the context of the severe and complex nature of these cases and the difficult nature of this work the outcome figures are good.

1. Clinical Global Impression (Improvement) Scale - CGI-I The CGI-I score is established by consensus within the multidisciplinary team, at the point of discharge, according to a 7 point Likert scale with items as shown in the Key to the CGI-I chart below:

 81% in 2009/10 (Major improvement 22%, Moderate improvement 34%, Minor improvement 25%)

 90% in 2010/11 (Major improvement 33%, Moderate improvement 33%, Minor improvement 24%)

 89% in 2011/12 (Major improvement 48%, Moderate improvement 33%, Minor improvement 7%)

 93% in 2012/13 (Major improvement 48%, Moderate improvement 33%, Minor improvement 11%)

 95% in 2013/14 (Major improvement 26.3%, Moderate improvement 47.4%, Minor improvement 21.1%)

 100% in 2014/15 (Major improvement 47.1%, Moderate improvement 47.1%, Minor improvement 5.8%)

 100% in 2015/16 (Major improvement 59.1%, Moderate improvement 36.4%, Minor improvement 4.5%)

 100% in 2016/17 (Major improvement 61.1%, Moderate improvement 33.3%, Minor improvement 5.6%)

 95% in 2017/18 (Major improvement 55.0%, Moderate improvement 35.0%, Minor improvement 5.0%)

 100% in 2018/19 (Major improvement 64.7%, Moderate improvement 5.9%, Minor improvement 29.4%)

 100% in 2019/20 (Major improvement 73.3%, Moderate improvement 13.3%, Minor improvement 13.3%)

 100% in 2020/21 (Major improvement 77.8%, Moderate improvement 22.2%, Minor improvement 00.0%)
 
Last edited:
Page 13-14 is worth a look for the claims on the bar charts of what people progressed from severity-wise during their visit.

note the bar chart of improvement on page 13 uses the following 'key'
1 = Major improvement
2 = Moderate improvement
3 = Minor Improvement
4 = No change
5 = Minor deterioration
6 = Moderate deterioration
7 = Major deterioration

and on page 14:

The CGI-S score is established at two time points: first at admission and again at discharge. This measure is based upon the following question and 7 point Likert scale: “Considering our clinical experience with such conditions, how ill is the patient at this time point?”

1 = Not at all ill
2 = Borderline ill
3 = Mildly ill
4 = Moderately ill
5 = Markedly ill
6 = Severely ill
7 = Among the most extremely ill patients

At admission, 100% of patients scored either (4) Moderately, (5) Markedly, (6) Severely, or (7) Extremely ill. At discharge, the category (score) had changed (reduced) for all 9 (100%) of the patients.


OK so then after describing the CGI, astoundingly the next 17 pages - from page 13-29 - were simply pages of subjective measure after subjective measure they'd managed to get these 9 individuals to fill in (only 5 of whom had CFS/ME, the rest another illness like depression, PTSD listed) , and yes both the CHalder fatigue scale and then HADS are in there.

with bar charts with curves on them for each showing 'at the start' and 'at the end'. It looks like a [25 pages expanded version of] brochure for face cream claiming anti-aging I had to analyse for an English report when I was a teenager. And I'm old enough now that I'm pretty sure none of the creams stopped aging back then.


the next 2 pages - pages 30-31 - are just full of feedback from patients and carers listing a lot of one line phrases.
 
Last edited:
the report itself is weird. it reads like something written by the place itself rather than what I expected from an inspector.

OK so now this turns out to be confirmed as the case?
On the last page of the report - page 36

"Annual Review Authors

Dr Peter Trigwell
Consultant and Clinical Lead National Inpatient Centre for Psychological Medicine

Mrs Kairon Eustace-Tyson
Clinical Team Manager National Inpatient Centre for Psychological Medicine Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust May 2021"
 
I suspect they’ll keep writing papers explaining how they can contribute to care, without even breaking stride.

They’ll believe they have a vital role no matter what happens.

well... I can imagine if the money was turned off and it became a poorly paid venture with no gravy train money for old rope to chase then you know, maybe, find a new target to market at their supporters and those surrounding them etc?

I agree I'm not sure the pony has another trick though
 
Well this looks all rather unpleasant. The mention of Leeds reminds me of when a local service seemed to be, very kindly, trying to arrange for me to be ambulanced up there. Given the impact of much shorter journeys in ambulances and a trip to a local hospital I said no. A decision I’m rather glad of with what I’ve learnt since.

I think I’ll skip further discussion and return to my happy place but hope people peddling this stuff can be sidelined once and for good, sooner rather than later.
:hug::hug:
 
Because the pandemic made their waiting list even longer — 2–3 years from referral — which they felt was inappropriate.
this might be 2+2=5 and only one thing behind the article/strategy but the section at the bottom of page 35 of this 'annual review' (which I've now realised is written by those who run the service not the CQC): NICPM-Annual-Review-2020-21.pdf

which references what I guess was the last actual CQC report which

makes a note of a section 'requiring improvement' then talks a lot about how great the service is, but the accommodation really does need a new location/they are trying to come up with a long-term estates plan.

The CQC had some concerns about the current ward facility, but not about the performance or effectiveness of the team. The CQC said “whilst the managers recognised the limitations of the environment, and the difficulties to secure a long-term estates strategy remained on the Trust risk register, the Trust still had no timescale or confirmed plans for the proposed new location for the service.” This is why the rating in this category was “Requires Improvement”.

The CQC also said “however, the service was specifically tailored to meet each patient’s individual needs and preferences. Staff planned, supported, and prepared patients and their families before admission, and patients and their families felt welcomed by the service. The service had a clear admission and assessment process that was entirely recovery-focused and supported patients with a successful discharge.”
 
Last edited:
Ok but still a bit strange to see an opinion piece like this that isn't based on a new study or news fact by people who have little expertise in ME/CFS research. Perhaps it was in response to the news articles about Maeve's inquest and the publication got delayed?

it feels more about the current affairs stuff to do with benefits and severe illness (noting Liz Kendall MP's response to a question from Tessa Munt MP this week) and/or the task and finish plan stuff (an opportunistic/get ahead of the 'offering nothing' claims) maybe other things I might have missed...
 
This is actually a very weird paragraph, as @rvallee says. It makes one wonder who approached who to say what. This does not sound like Miller, and is presumably slotted in by Pederson. But if Miller was approached why does he go to Symington, Garner and Pederson. It seems more likely that garner and Pederson wanted to make a point about the enlightened state of Scandinavia and got someone to collar Miller to write for the BMJ as the local man. Pretty much like peers advertising their crypto firms in parliament I suppose.

Yes indeed, particularly as their reference 24 for it is a paper: Cognitive–behavioural group treatment for a range of functional somatic syndromes: Randomised trial | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core that includes Per Fink as the last author,

has dated itself 2018, but their method says

Between March 2005 and December 2006 the case notes of all patients referred were screened for eligibility. People who were considered likely to meet inclusion criteria were invited to undergo a clinical assessment to determine eligibility. To be eligible for participation individuals had to have a chronic (i.e. of at least 2 years duration) bodily distress syndrome of the severe multi-organ type, which requires functional somatic symptoms from at least three of four bodily systems, and moderate to severe impairment in daily living. Reference Fink, Toft, Hansen, Ornbol and Olesen18,Reference Fink and Schröder19 This unifying definition captures most patients with severe functional somatic syndrome diagnoses, Reference Fink and Schröder19 and has a prevalence of 3–4% in both primary and secondary care. Reference Fink, Toft, Hansen, Ornbol and Olesen


I have a feeling this 11-12 year gap from 2006-2018 the date they actually gave it is more a forerunner of the recent trend we are seeing from bps of just bunging later dates on things or releasing when it is convenient, rather than the requested 'long-term follow-up' that Nice underlines.

What in this circumstances would have stopped them from doing 1,2,3,5,10year proper objective assessments instead of ... you know the usual methods issues used.
 
Yes indeed, particularly as their reference 24 for it is a paper: Cognitive–behavioural group treatment for a range of functional somatic syndromes: Randomised trial | The British Journal of Psychiatry | Cambridge Core that includes Per Fink as the last author,

has dated itself 2018, but their method says




I have a feeling this 11-12 year gap from 2006-2018 the date they actually gave it is more a forerunner of the recent trend we are seeing from bps of just bunging later dates on things or releasing when it is convenient, rather than the requested 'long-term follow-up' that Nice underlines.

What in this circumstances would have stopped them from doing 1,2,3,5,10year proper objective assessments instead of ... you know the usual methods issues used.


I'm just reading further through this Danish paper that really could have been published in 2008 by the looks of it given recruitment was done in 2005-6 and the last measure is 16months.

I'm rubbing my eyes and checking what I'm reading for their proposed outcome measures:

The primary outcome was the mean change in aggregate score on the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36) subscales ‘physical functioning’, ‘bodily pain’ and ‘vitality’ from baseline to 16 months, i.e. 1 year after the STreSS intervention was completed.

These three widely used subscales were chosen because they cover key aspects of physical health that are commonly impaired in patients with functional somatic syndromes. Reference Mease, Arnold, Bennett, Boonen, Buskila and Carville24 The aggregate score was calculated as the mean of the z-scores of the three scales, and transformed into a t-score (mean 50, s.d. = 10, in the 1990 general US population) following the procedure for the calculation of norm-based SF-36 scores. Reference Ware, Kosinski and Gandek23,Reference Ware and Kosinski25

The aggregate score ranges from 15 to 65 and has a mean of 52.5 in the general Danish population. A 4-point increase on the aggregate score equals a change of 0.5 s.d. unit in the study sample and may be regarded as a clinically significant difference.

To facilitate comparison with other trials, we also report the more widely used SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), which in the study protocol was used for power calculation (see below). On this scale, a 4–7 point improvement is regarded as a clinically relevant change. Reference Ware and Kosinski25,Reference Ware, Bayliss, Rogers, Kosinski and Tarlov27

I'm pretty sure from this last line above that means they didn't use the SF-36 as it should be used (a global measure) but instead just picked a few of the scales out then fished around making up their own calculation for those and what they claim would be 'clinically significant'.

But there is far more.... read the bit after the next quote (I'm trying to keep the para in order) as they then chucked this out!!!

Secondary outcomes were treatment response, defined as an improvement in the SF-36 aggregate score of at least 4 points; improvement in social functioning (SF-36 social functioning scale) and emotional wellbeing (SF-36 mental health scale); and reduction of illness worry (7-item subscale of the Whiteley Index), physical symptoms (90-item Symptom Checklist – Revised somatisation subscale) and severity of depression and anxiety (8-item Symptom Checklist scale).

Reference Fink, Ewald, Jensen, Sørensen, Engberg and Holm28Reference Fink, Ørnbøl, Huyse, De Jonge, Lobo and Herzog30


I'm quite astounded because straight after this para, there is then a section 'statistical analysis' and it is hard to belief on reading how they wrote this with a straight face saying they had to throw out the fuller SF-36 [that the para above states was to triangulate/make their results comparable] because their physical and mental health scores negatively correlated.

It is worth the effort of reading through this, and as I've only posted the first long para to this with my line breaks for readability it might even be worth going through to the paper to read the rest of this section which carries even further on with descriptions of their 'adaptations to their measures and calclations after the fact'.

Statistical analysis

The power calculation was based on the SF-36 PCS scores. Reference Ware and Kosinski25

A sample size of 120 participants was estimated to provide 83% power, at the 5% significance level, to reject the null hypothesis of no difference in improvement between the two groups, when a difference of 5 points on the PCS was assumed and losses to follow-up of 15% in the STreSS group and 30% in the comparison group were allowed.

However, a validation of the SF-36 questionnaire in the study sample, based on patients’ reports at referral, demonstrated serious shortcomings with the SF-36 PCS. Reference Schröder, Ørnbøl, Licht, Sharpe and Fink31 We found an unexpected moderate negative correlation of the physical and mental component summary measures, which are constructed as independent measures.

According to the SF-36 manual, a low or zero correlation of the physical and mental components is a prerequisite of their use. Reference Ware, Kosinski and Gandek23 Moreover, three SF-36 scales that contribute considerably to the PCS did not fulfil basic scaling assumptions. Reference Schröder, Ørnbøl, Licht, Sharpe and Fink31

These findings, together with a recent report of problems with the PCS in patients with physical and mental comorbidity, Reference Hann and Reeves32 made us concerned that the PCS would not reliably measure patients’ physical health in the study sample.

We therefore decided before conducting the analysis not to use the PCS, but to use instead the aggregate score as outlined above as our primary outcome measure.

This decision was made on 26 February 2009 and registered as a protocol change at clinicaltrials. gov on 11 March 2009.

Only baseline data had been analysed when we made our decision and the follow-up data were still concealed. A post hoc power analysis revealed that power was slightly reduced (80% instead of 83%) by the change of primary outcome definition.
 
Last edited:
oh yeah I thought I'd pick out this point about the NICPM 'annual review' (written by themselves) paper quoted

It is full of pie charts and bar charts about who is there - and given only 9 people consented to filling in this data, and it is stuff like their illness, secondary comorbidity and length of stay it feels incredibly identifiable as apart from the 5 who were lumped under CFS the others (4 people) were one line on other diagnoses like depression or the one with ptsd, one with ibs etc. same thing with the comorbidity where it says 'most' had these but then the chart shows 5 had 'nil' and then list eg a hearing impairment for one, diabetes for one other etc


Yes, you are reading this correctly. This bunch of article authors are quoting a report as if it is a CQC report, that is actually some strange 'annual review' written by themselves that

- has approx 5 CFS/ME patients it discharged and filled in their (I assume lots of given how many subjective measures) measures.

- And the results are mixed in with 4 other patients with different, not CFS/ME, conditions.
 
More propaganda from BPS. Isn't it lovely that Garner et al are interested in our mental health, wanting to give us hope - how wonderfully evangelistic of them. Our true saviours. Their references include the psychologist Reme doing her study in Norway on LC patients. Basically a stitch up by the Oslo Fatigue Consortium.

I was thinking about the "50% improvement" (according to the MDT of the Leeds clinic) and a bit sickened they mentioned Maeve. Maeve sounded like someone who had hope that eventually biomedical science would provide the answers and wanted to stay alive while her illness worsened and with it her nutrition and hydration worsened (even while in hospital!) no support was given to her or her carer to maintain her nutrition and after so much negative and unhelpful medical input (which involved denying her a NJ tube) she died.

Perhaps the "50% improvement" was getting good nutrition and had nothing to do with psychology. How would we know without a more rigorous examination of this "evidence". Perhaps put pwME into a low stimulus ward and start feeding them, stop gaslighting them and then look at the results.
 
Back
Top Bottom