I was trying to work out how much this rehab costs, on the back of an envelope.
There are about 250 BACME members (I thought there might be more).
A rehab course costs maybe £1,000, maybe quite a bit more.
There ought to be about 6,000 new ME/CFS cases per annum in the UK.

~~~~~ I make the cost somewhere around £10-20M p.a. I think it could be quite a lot more than that but let's be conservative. Over 3-5 years that is £30-100M. Sequence ME is likely to need about £20M over that time period. Which is better value?
 
Here's what the document says about their theoretical basis:

Making sense of the diagnosis, based on the history

 The BACME dysregulation model (see Resources Section below this table) can be helpful for people to make sense of the condition. They may have felt disbelieved in previous healthcare encounters, especially if investigations did not uncover any abnormalities.

 Other hypotheses about the underlying mechanisms of ME/CFS are being developed,some of which may relate to specific subgroups, and we need to be aware that the evidence base is constantly changing with new research being published. As a result, new treatments may be developed over time for some ME/CFS subgroups.

 Does the dysregulation model make sense to the individual? How does it help and how can they use this understanding?

 Does supported self-management seem the best way forward at this time? For example, if there are other treatments being explored, we may need to consider if they are complimentary and can run in parallel, or perhaps one approach may need to be delayed to a different time so that they run in series.

And here's their summary from their Dysregulation model document:
https://bacme.info/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/BACME-An-Introduction-to-Dysregulation-in-MECFS-1.pdf

So, although there is no clearly understood pathway regarding the disorder, based
on the evidence we have so far, a simple way to think about the illness is that:

• In some people there may be a pre-existing vulnerability, such as possible genetic factors or increased activation of the immune system during its development (Morris2019). Developmental changes occurring through childhood could be another vulnerability factor. Many patients were highly active before becoming unwell, often describing an inability to rest or relax prior to the illness and this may indicate a preexisting highly responsive sympathetic nervous system (on mode) and poor responses in the parasympathetic nervous system (off mode). Some conditions including Hypermobility and Autism may also constitute an underlying vulnerability asthey are now being recognised to have associations with Autonomic System Dysfunction.

• In some cases, there is a clear trigger for the onset of symptoms, for example a viral infection or a major emotional event such as a bereavement.

• In other cases, chronic demands over time act as the trigger possibly by causing the body to enter an immune reaction or sickness response, with changes in the HPA Axis and Autonomic Nervous System.

• The illness may impact on the regulation of the autonomic nervous system, causing dysautonomia including orthostatic problems (our body’s response to being upright against gravity)

• The body remains in a protective state and is highly reactive to any changes in internal and external demands, for example having an increased immune response to exertion (Post Exertional Malaise).

• In some people the nervous system remains in high sympathetic arousal and the parasympathetic responses are inhibited restricting the body’s restorative functions, such as sleep, and making it hard to achieve and maintain homeostasis (HPAregulation).

• Mitochondrial function can be altered with disordered recovery after activity meaning there is a reduction in the anaerobic threshold following physical activity. So, the dynamic systems in the body that are supposed to work together and regulate each other to keep us well or in homeostasis are now dysregulated and may work in opposition to each other. Many patients describe that their brain wants to go but the body wants to stop

What can be done about dysregulation?

As these are complex systems that need to regularly adjust and change in response to demands and our world, it is difficult to find one factor that will correct dysregulation. However, we know factors that can aggravate dysregulation along with strategies that can improve stability and support homeostasis.

The approaches that can be helpful to therapy include:

• Regulation of the body clock and circadian rhythms, including sleep, light and eating patterns

• Desensitisation of the sympathetic nervous system and increasing the parasympathetic response.

• Supporting orthostatic tolerance through fluid levels and management techniques.

• Matching energy availability and energy expenditure, understanding that there are different currencies for different types of activity, such as physical, cognitive, social and emotional. Working within the energy envelope, not pushing outside of it.

• Working aerobically within tolerance levels and reducing heart rate at rest and on exertion.

• Minimising immune activation and triggers for increased inflammation

• Balancing and managing overall demands and activity to remain within limits and allow recovery, reducing the impact of a boom-and-bust pattern on the HPA.

• Recovery time for restorative rest following exertion to allow return to baseline

• Ensuring diet is providing appropriate nutrients and delivered in different ways, for example by eating smaller portions more often, supports regulation of blood sugar levels.

Initially the focus is on consistency and regulating, to support stability before increasing the level of demand. This should be done gradually allowing development of tolerance and adaption prior to any further increases in demand, to enable the body to rebalance.

Therapy programmes should work on different phases of stabilisation and then building tolerance. It is important that any strategies are implemented after a careful assessment of the individual’s condition, and which aspects of dysregulation are most prominent and need to be addressed to support greater stability. Understanding how the body’s physiology can be affected by this illness is an important starting point to any therapy programme.
 
Some conditions including Hypermobility and Autism may also constitute an underlying vulnerability asthey are now being recognised to have associations with Autonomic System Dysfunction.

With the scattering of extra capital letters it reads like a random Facebook comment rather than something put out by a professional organisation.
 
Does supported self-management seem the best way forward at this time? For example, if there are other treatments being explored, we may need to consider if they are complimentary and can run in parallel, or perhaps one approach may need to be delayed to a different time so that they run in series.

In other words, their model is unfalsifiable. It can never be simply wrong and irrelevant, it will always have a role somewhere somehow.
 
I think this should be resisted on the much simpler argument that there is no reliable evidence base for it. If this policy had been considered systematically by NICE alongside GET and CBT it would have been thrown out as unevidenced. There aren't even any trials.
I agree. But god help us if it leads to a multimillion pound pacing-up trial.

Yes. Overall it seems like they put a lot of work into trying to say “we do believe it’s a real thing now we’re just trying to help people” to give themselves cover for an approach which is based in rehabilitation and psychology, while lacking any evidence for this beyond their own ‘experience’
And it should be noted that there is strong evidence that experience – and particularly their experience – is very bad at knowing what works.
 
Not BACME, but there was this physiotherapist from the University of Debrecen who wanted to recruit people from my group for a pacing up kind of study. It looked eerily similar to what we see here, with emphasizing that pacing up is not GET and rejecting the deconditioning theory. I asked her what the reasoning behind her approach was, what she believes drives the disease then if she thinks this will help. She just ignored that question completely.
I’m dealing with those kind of people right now. They are unable to give any straight answers. Here’s how it goes:

«Because you’re stable now, your body will eventually adapt when you do more»

Why?

«Because bodies adapt»

In many cases they don’t. Gradually eating more sugar doesn’t cure diabetes. Running on a broken leg before it’s sufficiently healed makes it worse. Why is it the case with ME/CFS?

«Because that’s our experience»

My experience is that mine doesn’t adapt, it has consistently gotten worse.

«It’s important to keep faith. The people that dare to try again even if they have failed many times are much more likely to get better»

Have you considered that the people that got better due to natural variation or improvements, were the ones that were able to tolerate doing more because the had an improvement first or at the same time, not that doing more caused the improvement?

«I feel like you’re attacking me. We’re trying to help you based on experience from working with many others that we have managed to help, and all you do is criticise us».
 
experience – and particularly their experience – is very bad at knowing what works.

especially as their model has no room for a scenario in which their involvement isn't needed. Patient recovers, or doesn't recover but grows more confident in managing despite the illness - tick in the box for therapeutic help. Patient shows no improvement or gets worse - more therapeutic help obviously needed to 'enable' or 'support' them to do better. As Sean says above, it's unfalsifiable.
 
I’m dealing with those kind of people right now. They are unable to give any straight answers. Here’s how it goes:

«Because you’re stable now, your body will eventually adapt when you do more»

Why?

«Because bodies adapt»

In many cases they don’t. Gradually eating more sugar doesn’t cure diabetes. Running on a broken leg before it’s sufficiently healed makes it worse. Why is it the case with ME/CFS?

«Because that’s our experience»

My experience is that mine doesn’t adapt, it has consistently gotten worse.

«It’s important to keep faith. The people that dare to try again even if they have failed many times are much more likely to get better»

Have you considered that the people that got better due to natural variation or improvements, were the ones that were able to tolerate doing more because the had an improvement first or at the same time, not that doing more caused the improvement?

«I feel like you’re attacking me. We’re trying to help you based on experience from working with many others that we have managed to help, and all you do is criticise us».
O.M.G. I'm so sorry that you're dealing with this.

Another one is: "You have to learn to listen to your body." This implies your body makes sense. And often, it doesn't. My body and brain confuse the hell out of me. I recently explored Dan Neuffer's stuff (being desperate and trying to be open minded). He talks about 'finding your triggers.' I literally don't know!!! Anything can be a trigger! And often, there's no way of knowing and definitely it don't know I'm advance (except of course things that I know it advance will be very taxing).
 
Last edited:
O.M.G. I'm so sorry that you're dealing with this.
Thank you! It’s quite frustrating..
Another one is: "You have to learn to listen to your body." This implies your body makes sense. And often, it doesn't. My body and brain confuse the hell out of me. I recently explored Dan Neuffer's stuff (being desperate and trying to be open minded). He talks about 'finding your triggers.' I literally don't know!!! Anything can be a trigger! And often, there's no way of knowing and definitely it don't know I'm advance (except of course things that I know it advance will be very taxing).
Making sense of ME/CFS is rough. I feel for you.

If you manage to do make sense of your body, and it isn’t «doing more will make it better», you’re told that you haven’t actually made sense of your body. Experience is only valid if it corroborates that physician’s beliefs..
 
They have also adopted the term «pacing up» and are outright defending it and claiming it’s not based on a deconditioning model of ME/CFS, and therefore not a version of GET, and therefore is NICE-compliant:
That table is some grade A horseshit, truly impressive level of doublethink, and they don't even actually comply, even with their weasel words that NICE anticipated they obviously contradict both the letter and spirit, but it's not as if they care about being accurate or honest.

But if there is no deconditioning hypothesis, then there is no basis for the model. Sadly, hardly anyone cares about it. Which makes those decades of insisting on it look even worse, it wasn't even needed to lie, it could simply be asserted on the generic benefits of exercise and no one but those who understand ME/CFS would object.

There is exactly as much difference between those models as there is a difference between making predictions based on astrology or on ghost séances. There are differences, they just don't matter one bit and are equally worthless.
 
If anyone are doing a deep read of it, I’d be very interested to read their reasoning for why pacing up might produce improvements.

Especially if it involves something other than activity avoidance theories - i.e. that the absence of regular activity is causing the symptoms experienced when being active.

I don’t understand how it would be possible to construct a theory where more activity would lead to an improvement, unless the lack of activity (deconditioning or activity avoidance) was a part of the issue.
That's all they have left. And it's why CBT is becoming dominant over GET, in that it's no longer about making people physically fitter, but simply about getting us to understand that it's safe to be. Which is the old model anyway. This is also the dominant framing with all the brain retraining woo.

There is no reason for any of this, other than it has been a dominant idea for decades. The institutions of medicine prefer to preserve egos over lives, and so they are fine with this nonsense.
 
As others have pointed out, I think the two most potent arguments are that 1) there is no robust evidence in favour of this approach, and that 2) gradual symptom-contingent pacing up was tested in PACE and failed.

«Lived experience» isn’t enough evidence when you’re claiming that it can caused improvements (even if you’re not claiming it’s a cure).

It doesn’t matter what they call it.
 
Overview of the therapy

As the remit of the guide is active therapy the rationale for the rehabilitation approach is included. The World Health Organisation has defined rehabilitation as:

"A process aimed at enabling people to reach and maintain their optimal physical, sensory, intellectual, psychological and social functional levels. Rehabilitation provides people with the tools they need to attain independence and self-determination.”

The World Health Organisation considers that access to rehabilitation is a human right. The WHO “optimising” approach to rehabilitation can form part of the dialogue with the person with ME/CFS when forging a therapeutic alliance.

"Based on values and goals".
 
They seem to have missed the fact that pacing up has no evidence base in trials whatever.
The basing in lived experience is pure manipulation.
Also for all its fault, and it has many, the pacing in PACE was about pacing up gradually, not the actual meaning that we patients understand and apply, and the entire message out of PACE was that it was inferior to GET. Which it wasn't anyway.

But this is evidence-based medicine, where no one has ever let a total lack of evidence get in their way.
 
I had forgotten that. So we had a trial and pacing-up was even less use than GET (if anything).
I’m going off of what I remember from other people’s comments, but I’m fairly certain it was not fixed increments. I don’t know where to find the protocol to check.
 
Back
Top Bottom