Peter T
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Post copied from Petition: #MEAction: Publish the NICE ME/CFS Guideline Now
Dr Myhilll has started a petition calling for the immediate withdrawal of the old 2007 NICE ME/CFS guidelines, see
Call for NICE to WITHDRAW its CURRENT ME/CFS GUIDELINE – CG53
https://www.change.org/p/the-national-institute-for-health-and-care-excellence-nice-call-for-nice-to-withdraw-its-current-me-cfs-guideline-cg53?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_30539566_en-GB:8&recruiter=1224171280&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=G>Search>SAP>UK>Brand>All-Match_Types
In an up date (circulated today) to the previous petition put out in conjunction with Dr Myhill’s complaint to the GMC about the PACE authors it is said
So it may be worth us considering whether supporting this new petition would be a constructive move forward or not. Though I would not object to serious discussion of whether PACE represents research misconduct or just bad science, will it be helpful to muddy the waters with NICE during the current delay?
[Edited to add link to the update to the old petition relating to Dr Myhill’s GMC complaint]
Dr Myhilll has started a petition calling for the immediate withdrawal of the old 2007 NICE ME/CFS guidelines, see
Call for NICE to WITHDRAW its CURRENT ME/CFS GUIDELINE – CG53
https://www.change.org/p/the-national-institute-for-health-and-care-excellence-nice-call-for-nice-to-withdraw-its-current-me-cfs-guideline-cg53?utm_content=cl_sharecopy_30539566_en-GB:8&recruiter=1224171280&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition&utm_term=G>Search>SAP>UK>Brand>All-Match_Types
Call for NICE to WITHDRAW its CURRENT ME/CFS GUIDELINE – CG53 - https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg53
In its recent review of the above guideline, NICE collated evidence from many sources – see https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ng10091/documents/evidence-review-7
In a total of nineteen tables, NICE looked at 172 CBT outcomes derived from the various studies and graded the evidence for 153 (89%) as “VERY LOW” quality and for the remaining 19 (11%) as “LOW” on quality. Not a single study was found to have yielded evidence that was any better than “LOW’’ quality.
With respect to graded exercise therapy (GET), of a total of 64 outcomes in studies of GET, NICE graded 52 (81%) as “VERY LOW” quality and 12 (19%) as “LOW” quality. Again, not a single study produced evidence any better than “LOW” quality.
Credit - https://www.thefacultylounge.org/20...ate-the-cbtget-school-of-mecfs-treatment.html
In her complaint to the GMC about the “PACE authors”
https://www.drmyhill.co.uk/wiki/My_Complaint_to_the_GMC_about_the_PACE_authors
Dr Myhill submitted evidence showing the harm done to ME/CFS sufferers by the administration of CBT and GET. More than 200 letters were sent to the GMC detailing such harm, and over 10,000 sufferers added their lived experiences of harm to an online petition - https://www.change.org/p/the-genera...s-complaint-to-the-gmc-about-the-pace-authors
Further details of the harm caused to ME/CFS sufferers by CBT and GET were submitted to NICE as part of their review process of CG53. See https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg...er-consultation-comments-table-pdf-4602203536
In view of the evidence that
· the use of CBT or GET for ME/CFS is not supported by the scientific literature
· the use of CBT or GET for ME/CFS patients results in harm
and notwithstanding the delays in publishing the new NICE guideline on ME/CFS, action must be taken forthwith regarding the current guidance, CG53.
We, the undersigned,
---require that NICE withdraws CG53 immediately
---affirm that having no NICE guidance in place for ME/CFS is better than having the current guidance CG53
Petition submitted by Dr Myhill.
In an up date (circulated today) to the previous petition put out in conjunction with Dr Myhill’s complaint to the GMC about the PACE authors it is said
Once we have CBT and GET removed as ‘treatments’ for ME/CFS, we can fully re-open the GMC case against the PACE authors. In fact, we have it on good authority that the pushback against the new NICE guideline has been so ‘strong’ because it is accepted that, once adopted, this will strengthen Dr Myhill’s complaint to the GMC about the PACE authors. See https://www.change.org/p/the-general-medical-council-i-am-showing-my-support-for-dr-myhill-s-complaint-to-the-gmc-about-the-pace-authors/u/29549930?cs_tk=Ao831H5wSJSJAx_bOWEAAXicyyvNyQEABF8BvPIiHXL-SFKTtZo_ostp_d4=&utm_campaign=8d4aa16a39b543d5ab36a50e51ef1c60&utm_content=initial_v0_5_0&utm_medium=email&utm_source=petition_update&utm_term=cs
So it may be worth us considering whether supporting this new petition would be a constructive move forward or not. Though I would not object to serious discussion of whether PACE represents research misconduct or just bad science, will it be helpful to muddy the waters with NICE during the current delay?
[Edited to add link to the update to the old petition relating to Dr Myhill’s GMC complaint]
Last edited by a moderator: