1. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 3rd May 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

United Kingdom: The Gibson Inquiry, (Inquiry into the status of CFS/M.E. and research into causes and treatment), 2006

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Tom Kindlon, Apr 10, 2021.

  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    This post copied from the members only thread in memory of Dr Ian Gibson

    And the report by a group of parliamentarians, colloquially called the Gibson Inquiry.
    I spent a lot of time on a submission highlighting the evidence of bias in terms of how the Medical Research Council had allocated funding and in particular the problems in how they drew up their research strategy in 2003. I think he helped highlight some important issues.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 11, 2021
  2. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    6,363
    And if I remember correctly, they never got an official acknowledgment of receipt of the report or indeed any response from the government. It wasn't an official inquiry called for by government, hence I think that let them get away with not responding.

    Here's a link to the report and to a summary of key points in case of interest:

    Gibson Inquiry Report
    http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2006/gibson-me-inquiry-report.pdf

    Summary of the Key Points in the Report of the Parliamentary Inquiry
    http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2006/hooper-response-to-gibson-report.pdf
     
    April, MEMarge, Sean and 9 others like this.
  3. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    I think there's a good chance it helped put focus on the Medical Research Council who up to then had only supported research grant proposals by psychiatrists and psychologists and whose research strategy said it wasn't necessary to study the causes/pathophysiology of the condition.

    They have moved from that position. One can always want more, but things have certainly improved.
     
    MEMarge, DokaGirl, Sean and 9 others like this.
  4. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    600
    Likes Received:
    6,363
    Well some movement yes but I don't see the MRC has moved very much at all over all these years since the Gibson Inquiry. I mean how much have they actually given to biomedical research on ME since then whilst still funding BPS research?

    What have they done to really move things on for PWME, to speak out and correct the damage done by the BPS trials they have funded and promoted over the decades?

    And of course the MRC as the main funder of PACE have completely failed to take any action to investigate it and the part played by the MRC statistical unit or to get it retracted or to speak out to protect patients from potentially dangerous and inappropriate treatments. Nothing, not a thing so yes a few crumbs thrown our way but to me that is all, just a few crumbs, seriously, seriously inadequate.
     
    April, Sean, DokaGirl and 4 others like this.
  5. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,549
    Likes Received:
    14,817
    It seemed clear with the millions that went to the FINE Trial and PACE Trial; the money that went to the biopsychosocial psychiatrists and psychologists before that; and the very biased MRC Research Strategy panel and subsequent report that the MRC policy on ME/CFS seemed completely run from the biopsychosocial viewpoint.

    The round of 5 basically biomedical studies that were funded in 2011, along with the DecodeME study, shows to me a big change.

    As I say, one could always want more. And indeed I believe ME/CFS should get more.
     

Share This Page