1. Guest, click here to read the 'News in Brief' post for w/c 8th Dec.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Trial By Error: Professor Jonathan Edwards’ View of ME

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Suffolkres, Dec 2, 2019.

  1. Suffolkres

    Suffolkres Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    639
    Likes Received:
    3,228
  2. Marky

    Marky Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    234
    Likes Received:
    1,769
    Location:
    Norway
    Brilliant
     
    Ravn, JaneL, MEMarge and 8 others like this.
  3. Milo

    Milo Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    758
    Likes Received:
    5,670
    Thank you @Jonathan Edwards.

    I could not help but read the comments at the bottom of the article, with the usual fights about ‘ME is not CFS’ and ‘it’s the enterovirus, stupid’. I am so over that.
     
    MerryB, Ravn, Chezboo and 25 others like this.
  4. Peter

    Peter Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    155
    Likes Received:
    1,237
    A no-nonsense thing of beauty. Brilliant overview.

    But the “CFS” term has no pros to it whatsoever, even in the broadest and most philosophical view.
     
    Ravn, JaneL, Webdog and 6 others like this.
  5. Andy

    Andy Committee Member & Outreach

    Messages:
    8,107
    Likes Received:
    59,066
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    InfiniteRubix, Ravn, JaneL and 6 others like this.
  6. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    973
    Likes Received:
    9,345
  7. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    18,688
    Likes Received:
    96,527
    Location:
    UK
    There are some very vehement comments after the article criticising Jonathan Edwards essay on what I think are inaccurate grounds, particularly those who think only those with a very specific Ramsay diagnosis are allowed to use the term ME, and accuse JE of ignorance. I finally got around to posting a comment. Good to see a few others have too.
     
    Atle, InfiniteRubix, Ravn and 21 others like this.
  8. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    60,177
    Yes, I have looked through them. I am happy to listen to every view but I have not so far changed my own.
     
    Atle, InfiniteRubix, Ravn and 19 others like this.
  9. James Morris-Lent

    James Morris-Lent Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    606
    Likes Received:
    4,269
    Location:
    United States
    The comments are a bit spicy but I'm glad to see people express their views directly.

    One of the main points of contention is subgroups (or some are saying totally different conditions) but I tend to think that by studying severe patients and/or large numbers of patients (e.g. biobank), the signal(s) will come through despite 'impure' sampling - when we manage to look in the right place.
     
    Ravn, Samuel, JaneL and 5 others like this.
  10. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    60,177
    It didn't seem like subgroups to me - more that CFS is not ME.
     
    Ravn, TrixieStix, Sarah94 and 6 others like this.
  11. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    14,790
    Is that contentious? It was once generally accepted that all ME was CFS, but not all CFS was ME. They are only words and definitions. They mean what you want them to mean.
     
    Ravn, JaneL, andypants and 1 other person like this.
  12. strategist

    strategist Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,144
    Likes Received:
    21,041
    A portion of the latest comment. That seems worth responding to. I vaguely remember that SPECT scan is another questionable or nonspecific diagnostic test promoted by an elite ME expert. Am I wrong?

    As for the second paragraph, I would say the true ME crowd has a tendency to engage in illness denial and superficially authoritative but substanceless talk to dazzle the uninformed. Exactly like the CBT/GET crowd.
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2019
    Ravn, sea, Sarah94 and 6 others like this.
  13. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    18,688
    Likes Received:
    96,527
    Location:
    UK
    I have written a personal response. I have no idea whether it is helpful or just adding fuel to the fire.
     
    Atle, Ravn, Mij and 12 others like this.
  14. Cheshire

    Cheshire Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    2,734
    Likes Received:
    16,978
    Very nice comment @Trish
     
  15. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    14,790
    I shall have to research some history. I was unaware that brain scans were readily available in 1955.
     
    InfiniteRubix, Ravn, sea and 5 others like this.
  16. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,908
    Likes Received:
    60,177
    I think it would be counterproductive to try to engage with comments on Virology blog. The place for rational discussion is here, I think.

    The point about brain lesions on imaging is intriguing. I think there is a false argument involved.
    As I understand it:

    1. The epidemic at the Royal Free, and maybe also in Iceland and elsewhere, was said to include cases of paralysis and also perhaps some cranial nerve lesions.

    2. Paralysis occurs in poliomyelitis because of lower motor neurone cell body damage in the cord and is flaccid (floppy).

    3. Perhaps because of other neurological findings as well as paralysis at Royal Free it was suggested that it might be due to an infection that produced not just myelitis but encephalitis as well - encephalomyelitis.

    4. When encephalitis produces paralysis it is always (long term) a spastic paralysis. As far as I know none of the RF cases had spastic paralysis and nobody with ME since has been found to have spastic paralysis.

    5. So the reason for calling ME encephalomyelitis was based on a mistake. It was not based on finding brain lesions on scans because there were no scans then. It was based on an inference of brain lesions that in hindsight was not good neurology.

    6. So there is no reason to think that brain lesions on scans in any way point to a diagnosis of ME. If anything the presence of brain lesions in someone with clinical ME points to them having some other undiagnosed encephalopathy, not the illness Ramsay reported. The illness Ramsay reported did not include evidence of brain lesions.
     
  17. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,227
    Likes Received:
    14,790
    It would be interesting to know which of the Royal Free cases were the ones which went on to have the protracted illness, and which recovered. Were they among the twenty "serious" cases reported by M and B - or were they from apparently less "florid" cases? Is that reported anywhere? I have not seen it.

    It seems telling that M and B reported, in 1970, that one case remained ill for a year. Some detailed research there, then.
     
    InfiniteRubix, Ravn, Samuel and 6 others like this.
  18. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,929
    Likes Received:
    13,923
    Behan tracked most of them down and found most though I do not know how many ) had recurrent/ lingering illness for the rest of their lives- it is in the youtube clip from Scottish BBCAlba that is on a different thread
    It may be this one ( no mic on work computer and no headphones with me)
     
  19. dave30th

    dave30th Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    682
    Likes Received:
    11,106
    Ha! I like to think SOME rational discussion can take place there as well!!
     
  20. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    977
    Likes Received:
    6,210
    Thanks @Amw66.
    Starts about 2.30
     
    Samuel and Amw66 like this.

Share This Page