UK NICE 2021 ME/CFS Guideline, published 29th October - post-publication discussion

New tweet today from Paul Garner:

He has added this link to the tweet:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4774/rapid-responses

Re: Updated NICE guidance on chronic fatigue syndrome
Dear Editor
Professors Turner-Stokes and Wade’s analysis of the unfitness of NICE’s evidence evaluation methods when applied to bespoke individual treatment programmes is shrewd, and their comparison of ME/CFS holistic rehabilitation to a well-tailored suit, fitted to the person, is amusing and apt.

However, neither their article nor the current NICE guideline addresses the issue that many people diagnosed with this condition might not need a suit. They might need medication.

The prevalence of ME/CFS, according to research cited in the BMJ’s recently updated ‘Best Practice’ feature, is 30.5% in the population. Nearly one person in three, if this is to be believed. This equates to 20 million, a deeply disquieting number of people for whom there are ‘no objective diagnostic tests . . . no curative treatment’ and for whom the primary goals of treatment are to give patients techniques for husbanding what little energy they possess. Their lives are limited and drab, and can scarcely be called more than existence.

where on earth did they get that figure from?
 
New tweet today from Paul Garner:

- Nice lost the plot with GRADE with ME/CFS, according to the people that actually developed the methods: "a disastrous misapplication of GRADE methodology is the source of the problem".

He has added this link to the tweet:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4774/rapid-responses

Thank you Paul Garner for making people aware of the criticism on the response you co-authored with some members of the GRADE Working Group and Signe Agnes Flottorp.[*]

Perhaps Paul Garner forgot about the criticism? And also that the following was added to their response? :

"This Rapid Response is not an official communication from the GRADE Working Group".


[*] "Signe Agnes Flottorp, Research director of the Norwegian Institute of Public Health. Flottorp recently was at the center of controversy when she defended research into the Lightning Process, a non-medical training program that combines concepts from Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Life Coaching, and Osteopathy. Critics have denounced the Lightning Process as pseudoscience or quackery."
from: ME/CFS Skeptic, The NICE guideline committee and GRADE methodology https://mecfsskeptic.com/nice-guideline-committee-and-grade-methodology/:
 
Last edited:
where on earth did they get that figure from?
So I take it the BMJ don't check the rapid responses? eg her twitter account doesn't exist and she says she got the 30% figure of pwME/CFS from the BMJ app.

(nothing against her personally, there is quite a lot of info about her and the loss of her son on the net) and it's clearly an attempt to raise awareness for the condition she believes he suffered from, but come on, at least try to get your facts right)
 
New tweet today from Paul Garner:

- Nice lost the plot with GRADE with ME/CFS, according to the people that actually developed the methods: "a disastrous misapplication of GRADE methodology is the source of the problem".

He has added this link to the tweet:
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4774/rapid-responses
Also at the link is a terrific response about the application of GRADE by NICE in the ME/CFS Guideline by @Michiel Tack (dated March 2021). If I'd read it before, I'd forgotten it. Definitely worth a read.
 
24 health professionals, including Wyller, Fors, Reme and other known names from the biopsychosocial brigade have written a response. They seem rather furious.


Debatten om ME er IKKE over!
google translation: The debate about ME is NOT over!
In Aftenposten on 10 November, «24 professionals» has a responseto our article on ME on 4 November. In their response, they claim that the debate about treating patients with graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy is far from over. This is despite the fact that the English expert body Nice, after a thorough assessment, advises against this as an offer to ME sufferers. The proviso is that cognitive behavioral therapy is not recommended as the main treatment, but can be used as support for patients who want this.

The 24 continue to state that "large parts of both Norwegian and British academic medicine reject the scientific basis for the advice".
There is no professional disagreement that changes in the immune system, nervous system and hormonal system can be seen in ME. But also cognitive processes can bring about such changes, something neither the Nice report, Rønning or Saugstad can shake.

...

We know that neither cognitive therapy nor graded exercise therapy are miracle cures, but we also know for sure that it sometimes works. An obvious explanation is then that physiological processes have "tracked off", without being directly linked to what set it all in motion. In that case, it is not unexpected that a cognitive approach can make patients healthier. There is no more hocus pocus!

Rønning and Saugstad are unfortunately right that many ME patients have been treated badly in the health care system. Ironically, this is due to the same misconception that they themselves doubt, namely that mental processes can not give "real" disease.

...

If they mean that ME patients no longer should be mistrusted and ironized, we could not agree more.

If, on the other hand, they believe that treatment in the form of a cognitive approach and / or graded exercise therapy must be discouraged, we could not disagree more.
The debate in the newspaper Aftenposten continues with another round from the professors Rolf Rønning and Ola Didrik Saugstad with a great reply to the 24 health professionals who objected against the NICE guideline.

ME-debatten: Vi må slutte med det som ikke virker
The ME debate: We have to stop with what's not working

quotes:

In Aftenposten on 10 November, «24 professionals» has a response to our article on ME on 4 November. In their response, they claim that the debate about treating patients with graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy is far from over.

This is despite the fact that the English expert body Nice, after a thorough assessment, advises against this as an offer to ME sufferers. The proviso is that cognitive behavioral therapy is not recommended as the main treatment, but can be used as support for patients who want this.

The 24 continue to state that "large parts of both Norwegian and British academic medicine reject the scientific basis for the advice".

This statement is completely undocumented, and it turns the matter upside down. What Nice does is to state that there is no professional basis for claiming that the mentioned forms of action work.

...

We understand that "24 professionals" who have invested heavily in psychosocial treatment, want to fight for their treatment plan and livelihood. However, it is an absurd situation that a small group of loud-mouthed therapists will overtake the vast majority of ME patients and treat them against their will and desire.

ETA: Added a bit more to one of the quotes
 
Last edited:
The debate in the newspaper Aftenposten continues with another round from the professors Rolf Rønning and Ola Didrik Saugstad with a great reply to the 24 health professionals who objected against the NICE guideline.

ME-debatten: Vi må slutte med det som ikke virker
The ME debate: We have to stop with what's not working

quotes:

In Aftenposten on 10 November, «24 professionals» has a response to our article on ME on 4 November. In their response, they claim that the debate about treating patients with graded exercise therapy and cognitive behavioral therapy is far from over.

This is despite the fact that the English expert body Nice, after a thorough assessment, advises against this as an offer to ME sufferers. The proviso is that cognitive behavioral therapy is not recommended as the main treatment, but can be used as support for patients who want this.

The 24 continue to state that "large parts of both Norwegian and British academic medicine reject the scientific basis for the advice".

This statement is completely undocumented, and it turns the matter upside down. What Nice does is to state that there is no professional basis for claiming that the mentioned forms of action work.

...

We understand that "24 professionals" who have invested heavily in psychosocial treatment, want to fight for their treatment plan and livelihood. However, it is an absurd situation that a small group of loud-mouthed therapists will overtake the vast majority of ME patients and treat them against their will and desire.

ETA: Added a bit more to one of the quotes
Two new opinion pieces rebutting the one from the 24 health professionals who defended GET/CBT.

The first is from board leader of the Norwegian ME Association, Linda Bringedal. She writes:


quotes:
Nice shows that they largely take patients seriously, by removing treatments that the patient experience shows do harm, and that lack a scientific basis. The Nice guidelines constitute a paradigm shift in the view of ME.

...
No one denies that a biopsychosocial perspective is important. The surrounding environment and the person's mind affect illness, but neither more nor less in ME than other chronic illness. Cognitive therapy can be a good support in dealing with grief and loss associated with loss of function, but it is no cure.

Retningslinjene fra Storbritannia utgjør et paradigmeskifte i synet på ME
google translation: The guideline from UK constitute a paradigm shift in the view of ME

The other is from ME patient Jørn Tore Haugen. It is the second of three short opinion pieces.

Et foreldet syn på ME
google translation: An outdated view of ME

Quote:
.. these 24 professionals and Landmark represent a very small group of people who are fighting for an outdated view. Serious professionals have long realized that ME is a somatic disease.
 
Paul Garner has shared the opinion piece on twitter with the following text:

Somebody being honest about the perversion of the GRADE process by Nice on ME/CFS. We reported this in the BMJ. This story is yet to break

New tweet today from Paul Garner:

- Nice lost the plot with GRADE with ME/CFS, according to the people that actually developed the methods: "a disastrous misapplication of GRADE methodology is the source of the problem".

PG doesn't realise that there is another, bigger story that's about to break.
His tweets are really not going to age well.
 
That's in reference to the micro-clot finding as a biological model for long Covid. Once that paper is published, there won't be any space left for psychological explanations of onset or treatments in LC. The BPS god-of-the-gaps will then find their celestial throne controlling the ME/CFS world similarly upturned.

I imagine there is much still to analyse and the Pretorius paper likely won't come out until next year, so "about to break" is doing a little too much heavy lifting in my comment above. Perhaps in the meantime this tweet will suffice to keep everyone feeling optimistic that this could well be the inflexion point we've wanted. (Personally, I would interpret any of these relatively rare Twitter comments from the Prof. as a circumspect understatement).

 
Once that paper is published, there won't be any space left for psychological explanations of onset or treatments in LC.
You underestimate the BPS proponents. :) A biological mechanism is no hindrance to a psychological explanation of cause, or for psychological treatments. They are busy carving out niches in MS, and many more diseases. I've been told CBT works by reducing inflammation.
 
You underestimate the BPS proponents. :) A biological mechanism is no hindrance to a psychological explanation of cause, or for psychological treatments. They are busy carving out niches in MS, and many more diseases. I've been told CBT works by reducing inflammation.
More, or less, than a diet containing, say, carrots, pomegranates, or some OTC NSAID ?
 
I've been told CBT works by reducing inflammation.
Supposition. Would enjoy reading their proof of this. Was it a psychologist/therapist? A lot of people throwing around unproven biological theories out there and then being picked up by public and wellness industry e.g. intergenerational trauma, it’s in your DNA. Not proven.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's in reference to the micro-clot finding as a biological model for long Covid. Once that paper is published, there won't be any space left for psychological explanations of onset or treatments in LC. The BPS god-of-the-gaps will then find their celestial throne controlling the ME/CFS world similarly upturned.
I hope you're right, but as far as I know there's no evidence that microclots are a factor in ME/CFS. They seem to me quite likely to be specific to Covid. Any biological finding about long covid will just be taken by the BPS people as evidence that long covid isn't ME/CFS, not as evidence that ME/CFS has a biological basis, other than the stress or dysregulation stuff they think CBT can cure.
 
You underestimate the BPS proponents.

Yes, they love a bit of B to go with the P and S. The odd cytokine or bendy neck or blood clot.
I don't see blood clots altering the landscape any time soon. If this was a real story there would be grants funded all over the shop by now. All university hospitals know about blood clots yet all we hear is from one group in South Africa and a German machine for high there are no trials it seems.
 
I hope you're right, but as far as I know there's no evidence that microclots are a factor in ME/CFS. They seem to me quite likely to be specific to Covid. Any biological finding about long covid will just be taken by the BPS people as evidence that long covid isn't ME/CFS, not as evidence that ME/CFS has a biological basis, other than the stress or dysregulation stuff they think CBT can cure.
Yes, the only thing that will finally shut (most of) them up is when a truly unarguable biological cause is found why ME/CFS leads to an abnormal response to exertion. One that cannot be influenced by magical thinking. Of course there will always some who insist anything can be fixed by magical thinking.
 
Back
Top Bottom