MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

284
“These variances in procedure could make the difference between detecting XMRV or not”
(http://www.cfids.org/cfidslink/2010/010603.asp ).
An official statement issued on 6 th January 2010 by Frankie Vigil of R&R Parters for the Whittemore Peterson
Institute was robust about the Wessely et al study:
“This study did not duplicate the rigorous scientific techniques used by WPI, the National Cancer Institute and the
Cleveland Clinic, therefore it cannot be considered a replication study nor can the results claim to be meaningful
results.
“The WPI study was published after six months of rigorous review and independent laboratory confirmations, proving
that contamination had not taken place….In contrast, this latest study was published online after only three days of
review (and) patient samples used in the UK study…may have been confused with fatigued psychiatric patients, since
the UK has relegated “CFS” patients to psychiatric care and not traditional medical practices” (Co‐Cure NOT 6 th
January 2010).
Wessely, however, apparently remains unconvinced that the retrovirus XMRV has anything to do with
ME/CFS and seems relieved that the samples he provided from his own cohort of patients were found to be
negative, saying that the Lombardi / Mikovits study: “if confirmed, would have a serious impact on
understanding the pathogenesis of this complex and debilitating disease and its treatment”.
Wessely School psychiatrists readily accuse patients with ME/CFS of “catastrophising” their symptoms, and
of holding “catastrophic illness beliefs”, but their studies do not address the physical symptoms of ME/CFS
other than “fatigue”, classic symptoms such as repeated, prolonged vertigo (which is catastrophic), or
frequent episodes of incapacitating chest pain of similar intensity to a myocardial infarction (which are
catastrophic), or the inability to look after oneself (which again is catastrophic). All these are documented in
the ME/CFS literature, but Wessely School psychiatrists exclude such patients from their studies, yet claim
that they are studying people with “CFS/ME”. Moreover, a recent study found no evidence of
catastrophising in (ME)CFS, and that altered pain thresholds cannot be attributed to catastrophising (Meeus
M et al; Clin Rheumatol January 2010; Epub ahead of print).
The many misrepresentations perpetrated on participants in the PACE Trial appear to fall well below
standards of basic decency because they deny current knowledge.
There is no evidence that misrepresentations about ME/CFS by the Wessely School are about to cease.
In December 2008, the Chief PACE Trial Investigator, Peter White, gave a presentation at a Neurology and
Psychiatry Teaching weekend organised by the British Neuropsychiatry Association (BNA) at St Anne’s
College, Oxford. His presentation (“Chronic fatigue syndrome: neurological, psychological, or both?”) is
summarised in the Handbook that accompanied the meeting, which can be accessed at
http://bnpa.org.uk/doc/HANDBOOK.pdf.
Extracts from the Handbook show that White apparently remains unmoved by biomedical science and by
the taxonomic rules governing the WHO ICD classification:
“The ICD‐10 classification defines CFS within both the neurology chapter and mental health chapters.
Myalgic encephalomyelitis, the alternative name for CFS, is classified as a neurological disease (G93.3) (a.k.a. post‐
viral CFS), whereas neurasthenia (a.k.a. CFS not otherwise specified) is classified with mental health (F48”).
It cannot be over‐emphasised that Professor White is incorrect: the WHO does not classify “CFS” within
both the neurology chapter and the mental health chapter – ME/CFS is classified at G93.3, while chronic
“fatigue” is classified at F48.0, and the same disorder cannot be classified in two different places.