The science of craniocervical instability and other spinal issues and their possible connection with ME/CFS - discussion thread

At the heart of the issue about whether or not therapist-delivered treatments should be recommended by bodies like NICE for ME/CFS is the anomaly that these treatments do not require the safety assessments that drugs need for licensing.

A lot of people talk about the dangers of drugs, and not unreasonably. But so often I hear people say that it is fair enough to try 'therapy' first because it is natural and unlikely to do harm. There is nothing natural about chiropractic techniques as far as I can see. Or CBT for that matter. And harm from physical therapies can be devastating.

I think one of the arguments to NICE needs to be that all treatments need safety assessments and some form of harms reporting system (not just drug treatments). This should be true for CBT/GET or whatever other treatments are being proposed.

I don't see that having a 'natural' label on it makes a treatment safe in anyway.
 
I think one of the arguments to NICE needs to be that all treatments need safety assessments and some form of harms reporting system (not just drug treatments). This should be true for CBT/GET or whatever other treatments are being proposed.

Yes, I have made this point and mentioned a manuscript that should come out soon that highlights the failings in harm surveillance.
 


Stanford researchers looking for ME/CFS patients with CCI

June 19, 2019

...The aim is to compare how ME/CFS patients with CCI are similar to or differ from other ME/CFS patients and healthy controls, and to measure changes (if any) in patients pre — and post — surgery...

and

 
Last edited:
I am missing something here?

I don't know whether it is, but if the nanoneedle test* is being used for this pre and post op ME/CFS [sic] and CCI surgery study...

the nanoneedle study was a pilot, using n=20 ME, CFS patients, n=20 healthy control, no sick controls and not yet subject to a replication study.

How meaningful might results be if applied to another study group when the use of this test to distinguish between ME, CFS patients and healthy controls has not yet been replicated?


*Edited to add: Trish received the following response to her email enquiry requesting further information:

Hello and thank you for your email. If you are writing to express your interest in participating in the Nanoneedle Study, we have received an overwhelming response from the community. We appreciate your patience as we are working on next steps.
 
Last edited:
It seems odd to simply give an e-mail address with no link to a Stanford site with the normal sort of information about recruiting for a study and what the study will involve. Jen say's it's an ongoing study...

I am assuming for a proper study they would need to do a full ME/CFS and CCI diagnosis by appropriate experts, and take blood samples and collect other data for a range of tests initially and at follow ups. That will be expensive, so they presumably have the full funding arranged and ethical approval for the study. And they must surely have some sort of published plan/protocol for what they are going to test.
 
I have just sent this e-mail to the e-mail address given in Jen B's article. I'll post here what response I get:
I am a member of the Science for ME forum. We have seen a brief Medium article from Jen Brea advertising for patients with CCI and ME to take part in a study. We would be grateful if you could help us inform our members by giving us more information about this study. Is there a link you could provide to the study protocol or some other public information about the study and what it involves.

Thank you.
 
Automated reply:
Hello and thank you for your email. If you are writing to express your interest in participating in the Nanoneedle Study, we have received an overwhelming response from the community. We appreciate your patience as we are working on next steps.


Best regards,

-Anna

________________________________

Anna Okumu

Clinical Research Coordinator Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Project

Edit: Since I put CCI in the subject line of the e-mail as Jen suggested, I expect I'll get an individual reply later.
 
I think we've lost this. Completely. ME/CFS is what Jen Brea says it is.

It's been heading in this direction for a long time. We're almost completely there.
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2019-06-20 at 10.37.34 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-06-20 at 10.37.34 AM.png
    202.8 KB · Views: 106
  • Screen Shot 2019-06-14 at 9.28.18 AM.png
    Screen Shot 2019-06-14 at 9.28.18 AM.png
    130.7 KB · Views: 105
I think we've lost this. Completely. ME/CFS is what Jen Brea says it is.

It's been heading in this direction for a long time. We're almost completely there.
The first of the copied tweets says:
'Maybe someday others will suffer from it and it will be called Brea syndrome...' I took that to be a suggestion that Jen had a rare condition that maybe someone else might suffer some day, not that what Jen had is necessarily what the rest of us have.

I wish Jen well, and hope the rest of us might find what's wrong with us sometime soon too. Since I don't have the symptom pattern described by the people who have had this surgery, I don't see it as relevant for me, but I'm pleased for them that their treatment has worked.
 



I want to make clear that what I am about to tell you is a story. I hope it is an interesting story. I think it is plausible one. It is, nonetheless, a story of which I am uncertain, that has some significant gaps, and that I will never be able to prove in my specific case, even if the scientific literature one day validates aspects of it in general. .... So, that is why I tell it, but do take it with a grain of salt
 
Page 33

https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/icd/Topic-packet-Sept-2018.pdf

ICD-10-CM Coordination and Maintenance Committee Meeting September 11-12, 2018

Topic Packet One:



Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes (EDS)

A proposal to create thirteen new codes for Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome (EDS) was presented at the March 2018 Coordination and Maintenance Meeting.

The new codes that were proposed were in recognition of the thirteen specific types of EDS that were published by the International Consortium on EDS. The classification and manuscripts about EDS were published in the March 2017 Part C Seminars in Medical Genetics issue of the American Journal of Medical Genetics and are all available through the Ehlers-Danlos Society (http://bit.ly/EDS2017papers).

However, based on public comment and the low prevalence of some types of EDS, a revised proposal to expand the more common and more severe types of EDS is being resubmitted for consideration.

Ehlers-Danlos syndromes are a clinically and genetically heterogeneous group of heritable connective tissue disorders characterized by articular hypermobility, skin hyperextensibility or laxity, and tissue fragility affecting virtually every organ system: skin, ligaments, joints, bone, muscle, blood vessels and various organs.

The prevalence and most common types of EDS cited in the GeneReview articles are:

hypermobile (hEDS) - 1:5000 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1279;
classical (cEDS) - 1:20,000 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1244
and vascular (vEDS) - 1:200,000 based on identification of 1500 affected individuals https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1494/.

The most severe in presentation and the only one associated with early mortality is vascular (vEDS). “The long-term outlook (prognosis) for people with vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome is generally poor. It is typically considered the most severe form of EDS and is often associated with a shortened lifespan. Among affected people diagnosed as the result of a complication, 25% have experienced a significant medical complication by age 20 and more than 80% by age 40. The median life expectancy for people affected by vascular EDS is 48 years.[4][2]”
https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/2082/ehlers-danlos-syndrome-vascular-type.

A specific ICD-10-CM code for the most common and severe types will be of value to the patient and the clinician. Regardless of the type experienced, EDS is a life- long progressive condition that has a major impact on the lives and daily function of most living with EDS.

This proposal is resubmitted jointly by Brad Tinkle, MD PHD, Division Chief of Clinical Genetics at Advocate Children’s Hospital and member of the Steering Committee of the International Consortium on EDS and Kay Jewell, MD Consultant, Acer Therapeutics Pharmaceutical Company.

(Proposed) TABULAR MODIFICATIONS

New/Revise subcategory

Q79.6 Ehlers-Danlos Syndromes

Add:

Q79.60 Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, unspecified
Q79.61 Classical Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Classical EDS (cEDS)​
Q79.62 Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Hypermobile EDS (hEDS)​
Q79.63 Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Vascular EDS (vEDS)​
Q79.69 Other Ehlers-Danlos syndromes

-------------------------------

The following new codes were approved by NCHS and added to the FY 2020 ICD-10-CM Tabular List that was posted a few days ago:

FY 2020 ICD-10-CM Tabular List:

https://dxrevisionwatch.files.wordpress.com/2019/06/icd10cm_tabular_2020.pdf

[28MB]

Page 1148:

Q79.60 Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, unspecified
Q79.61 Classical Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Classical EDS (cEDS)​
Q79.62 Hypermobile Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Hypermobile EDS (hEDS)​
Q79.63 Vascular Ehlers-Danlos syndrome
Vascular EDS (vEDS)​
Q79.69 Other Ehlers-Danlos syndromes


[Edited to add link.]
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom