Please Help David Tuller, Our Champion!

David Tuller’s fundraiser is now live! Tuller has been tireless in his battle against the GET/CBT ideological onslaught! He has much more work to do and he needs our support.

Tuller has been touring the globe, speaking about the harm the PACE trial has caused ME/CFS patients. Recently, he co-authored a critical paper, Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT, that was published in BMC Psychology.

Tuller has written more than seventy-five  posts on Vincent Racaniello’s Virology Blog, spanning seven years. His articles comprise a full history of how the PACE trial was used to mislead health care providers into thinking ME/CFS could be cured with “a walk and a talk.” Tuller has taken on some of the authors of the PACE study and, despite threats from them, has continued to challenge their findings.

Last year, Tuller successfully raised money through Crowdrise  in order to continue investigating and blogging about the PACE trial. The funds went to the School of Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley, which created a position for Tuller to continue his investigative work. Now, a year later, the funds have run out, and Tuller has to depend on the generosity of our community to continue his work.

Please donate HERE!

The Young ME Sufferers Trust: No Reported Harassment at Bristol University (Information Obtained Under FOI)

There has been no reported harassment of staff at Bristol University. Yes, you read that correctly.

We have all become accustomed to the increasingly shrill ‘harassment’ accusations against ME patients
and ‘activists’, both via the media and in lectures. This campaign appears to have originated at that now
infamous meeting of the Science Media Centre, revealed by our original 2014 Freedom of Information
Report, now updated under the title Shining a Light on the CMRC Setup (http://www.tymestrust.org/pdfs/ shiningalight.pdf). Members of the UK Research Collaborative have continued to spread these allegations ever since its launch.

In Shining a Light we stated: In the records of the meeting where ‘harassment’ of researchers was discussed, no mention was made of personal threats such as have been reported in the media. Freedom of Information (FOI) requests were listed as the most damaging type of ‘harassment’. The 2016 tribunal appeal Judgement ordering QMUL to release the PACE trial data highlights that Professor Trudie Chalder accepts that “no threats have been made either to researchers or participants”.

And yet the accusations persist and have even escalated. Tymes Trust has found this constant narrative so abhorrent that we have sought some answers. We have, once again, sought evidence.

You can read the rest of this report herehttp://www.tymestrust.org/pdfs/noharassmentbristol.pdf

Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial

Abstract:

BACKGROUND: Publications from the PACE trial reported that 22% of chronic fatigue syndrome patients recovered following graded exercise therapy (GET), and 22% following a specialised form of CBT. Only 7% recovered in a control, no-therapy group. These figures were based on a definition of recovery that differed markedly from that specified in the trial protocol.

PURPOSE: To evaluate whether these recovery claims are justified by the evidence.

METHODS: Drawing on relevant normative data and other research, we critically examine the researchers’ definition of recovery, and whether the late changes they made to this definition were justified. Finally, we calculate recovery rates based on the original protocol-specified definition.

RESULTS: None of the changes made to PACE recovery criteria were adequately justified. Further, the final definition was so lax that on some criteria, it was possible to score below the level required for trial entry, yet still be counted as ‘recovered’. When recovery was defined according to the original protocol, recovery rates in the GET and CBT groups were low and not significantly higher than in the control group (4%, 7% and 3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS: The claim that patients can recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.

 

Source: Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon, Alem Matthees & Simon McGrath. Can patients with chronic fatigue syndrome really recover after graded exercise or cognitive behavioural therapy? A critical commentary and preliminary re-analysis of the PACE trial. Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior Volume 5, 2017 – Issue 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1259724 (Full article)

 

PACE trial claims of recovery are not justified by the data: a rejoinder to Sharpe, Chalder, Johnson, Goldsmith and White (2017)

Abstract:

Background: Recently, we critically evaluated the claim from the PACE trial that cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) can lead to recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS). We showed that the trial’s definition of recovery was so loose it failed to capture the term’s core meaning. Also, this definition was substantially loosened very late in the trial, in ways that favoured the study hypotheses. The investigators do not acknowledge any of these criticisms and stand by their original analyses.

Purpose: To examine the arguments advanced in defence of PACE’s recovery claims.

Methods: Drawing on various sources of evidence, we consider three major arguments raised in defence of PACE’s recovery claims: (1) that since there is no agreed definition of recovery, it comes down to a matter of opinion; (2) that the original definition was ‘too stringent’; and (3) the revised definition generates results that align with previous studies.

Results: We find that: (1) ‘recovery’ is a strong claim, which implies evidence a return to health, and that the trial’s final definition did not preserve this core meaning; (2) there is no evidence to suggest that the original protocol-specified definition was ‘too stringent’; (3) absolute recovery rates from other studies are not a legitimate source of support for the recovery definition used.

Conclusions: The PACE trial provides no evidence that CBT and GET can lead to recovery from CFS. The recovery claims made in the PACE trial are therefore misleading for patients and clinicians.

 

Source: Carolyn Wilshire, Tom Kindlon & Simon McGrath. PACE trial claims of recovery are not justified by the data: a rejoinder to Sharpe, Chalder, Johnson, Goldsmith and White (2017). Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior. Volume 5, 2017 – Issue 1. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2017.1299358

 

“United We Stand”: Framing Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in a Virtual Symbolic Community

Abstract:

In this article, we report on a study that seeks to explore how the contested chronic condition myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), one of the current medical diagnoses for medically unexplained long-term exhaustion, is negotiated within the context of Norwegian internet sites.

From an analysis of discussions on 14 internet forums sustained by and for people living with ME, we seek to understand how their online activity sustains a virtual symbolic community (VSC).

After exploring the content on these sites, we identified four discursive domains, or fields of conversation, that are demarcated by a discursive frame, or norms, values, and goals that define and reinforce the boundaries of the community. Interpreting discursive domains and their discursive frame provides insight not only to the culture of the ME VSC but also to its role in an international social health movement, including its potential for becoming politically influential.

© The Author(s) 2014.

 

Source: Lian OS, Nettleton S. “United We Stand”: Framing Myalgic Encephalomyelitis in a Virtual Symbolic Community. Qual Health Res. 2015 Oct;25(10):1383-94. doi: 10.1177/1049732314562893. Epub 2014 Dec 8. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25488934

 

Chronic fatigue syndrome: a patient’s perspective

In 1999 I contracted a throat infection that receded after many weeks, but I was still unbelievably exhausted with the most intense flu-like malaise. Two years later I was diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) and joined the 240 000-plus people in the UK with this illness. I assumed that a diagnosis would lead to effective treatment, but I was in for a shock.

Initially my GP suggested I see a psychotherapist. It seemed a strange recommendation, but I trusted his judgement and decided to see if this would help. Unfortunately it had no impact at all on the illness. My GP then referred me to an endocrinologist who boldly announced that, as the test results were all normal, everything was fine and offered to prescribe antidepressants. I was deeply frustrated by the suggestion that clear test panels meant I should be treated as a depressed patient. I was not inclined to agree that antidepressants were the best treatment when my experience of the symptoms was closer to that of an infection than a mood disorder. In fact, I have been told a number of times that I’m simply depressed, or that I am de-conditioned and just need to exercise. I wouldn’t mind if either diagnosis were true, as there are effective treatments available, but they are inadequate explanations.

CFS/ME waxes and wanes but also causes post-exertional malaise: when patients go beyond their usual (restricted) activity level they suffer a worsening of symptoms which can be severe. Patients often refer to this as a crash. For me this can mean being bedridden for weeks with muscle weakness, dizziness, loss of appetite, and indescribable physical and mental exhaustion. It’s worth noting that my GP has only ever seen me when the symptoms are at the lesser end of the scale. During a crash I am too ill to leave my bed, let alone travel to the surgery.

When I first got sick, CFS/ME seemed to be largely treated as a mysterious psychological condition, with doctors encouraged to limit the number of tests done, and with patients left to self-manage. Since then things have improved a little in that there are fatigue clinics in some areas, but the overall treatment situation remains poor, with most patients receiving little or no effective treatment through the NHS.

The PACE trial is the largest study performed into CFS/ME treatments, primarily cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET). I think the £5 million cost would have been better spent on immunological studies, exercise physiology testing, and understanding the disease mechanisms. A recently published PACE trial paper reported on ‘recovery’ rates.1 However, the letters published in response to the paper show that the study’s post-hoc definition of ‘recovery’ was seriously flawed, and so much looser than the recovery criteria outlined in the trial’s protocol that the ‘recovery’ outcomes bear no relation to what an average person, or clinician, would define as recovery of health. PACE was an un-blinded study and the primary outcomes were all subjective self-report measures at risk of response bias. Changes from the trial protocol2 also meant that it was easier for patients to be classed as improved, yet even then the addition of CBT and GET to specialist medical care led to only an extra 11–15% of patients reporting improvement.3 This simply underscores the need for more research across all areas to find effective treatments.

CFS/ME presents difficulties for both patients and doctors, reinforcing the need for them to work together in partnership. A recent BMJ editorial4 entitled Let the Patient Revolution Begin could not have said it better:

‘ … health care won’t get better until patients play a leading role in fixing it.’

You can read the full comment here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3839372/

 

Source: Cornes O. Chronic fatigue syndrome: a patient’s perspective. Br J Gen Pract. 2013 Dec;63(617):648. doi: 10.3399/bjgp13X675458. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3839372/ (Full article)

 

Small wins matter in advocacy movements: giving voice to patients

Abstract:

In this article, the various players are delineated in a story of a contested illness and patient advocacy, played out within the corridors of federal power. It is suggested that the mistreatment and negative attitudes that health care providers and others have towards those with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is possibly due to the social construction of this illness as being a “Yuppie flu” disease. Institutional factors are identified that created these norms and attributions, as well as the multiple stakeholders and constituent groups invested in exerting pressure on policy makers to effect systemic change. This article also provides examples of how the field of Community Psychology, which is fundamentally committed to/based on listening to and giving voice to patients, is broadly relevant to patient activism communities. This approach focused, over time, on epidemiological studies, the name, the case definition, and ultimately the change in CFS leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Keys to this “small wins” approach were coalition building, use of “oppositional experts” (professionals in the scientific community who support patient advocacy goals) to challenge federal research, and taking advantage of developing events/shifts in power. Ultimately, this approach can result in significant scientific and policy gains, and changes in medical and public perception of an illness.

 

Source: Jason LA. Small wins matter in advocacy movements: giving voice to patients. Am J Community Psychol. 2012 Jun;49(3-4):307-16. doi: 10.1007/s10464-011-9457-7. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21858612