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

33
warning about dependence being encouraged and expectation of recovery being damaged by the message that is given in
this recommendation?” (http://tinyurl.com/2fpjxc ). NICE, however, rejected White’s recommendation.
Despite documented concerns about his unproven beliefs, including serious concerns about his irrefutable
conflicts of interest set out in November 2006 in the Report of the Gibson Inquiry by parliamentarians (see
below), Peter White is lead advisor on “CFS/ME” to the Department for Work and Pensions.
In June 2004 Peter White was awarded an OBE for his work on “CFS”. The citation was: “For services to
medical education”. Notices circulating at the time proclaimed him as leading the research into CFS/ME and
said his OBE was a “well‐deserved honour and acknowledgement of his contribution to work on CFS/ME”.
For someone to receive such an honour seems surprising if the person so honoured is apparently ignorant of
the established facts pertaining to the subject of his research interest for which he was honoured.
Professor Michael Sharpe believes that there is no pathology in ME/CFS. He describes patients who suffer
from it as “the undeserving sick of our society and our health service” (lecture given in October 1999 hosted by
the University of Strathclyde) and asserts: “The label of CFS avoids the connotations of pseudo‐disease diagnoses
such as ME” (Occup Med 1997:47:4:217‐227).
His view is that: “It is apparent that the attitude of patients suffering from this chronic state must be changed – the
knowledge that experience has shown that certain sensations have resulted from certain activities must be replaced by a
conviction that these efforts may be made without harm” (The Science of the Art of Medicine. Inaugural Lecture,
University of Edinburgh, 12 th May 2005, this being national ME Awareness Day). In his lecture, Sharpe
spoke on how to treat diseases with “no pathology” (but he seems to dismiss the symptoms that are a
manifestation of pathology) and he highlighted what he referred to as medicine’s “blind spot” in dealing
with symptoms that “are not expressions of disease”.
Together with Simon Wessely, Michael Sharpe contributed chapter 5 (Chronic Fatigue and Neurasthenia) in
a book entitled “Somatoform Disorders”, Volume 9, edited by Mario Maj (John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
2005). Although their chapter title refers to “Chronic Fatigue”, it starts by stating: “This chapter reviews
current knowledge about chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) and neurasthenia”, which immediately reveals not only a
telling lack of scientific rigour but also the underlying agenda of the Wessely School.
In their chapter, Sharpe and Wessely state: “The term CFS subsumed a multitude of previous terms (which)
include myalgic encephalomyelitis and post‐viral fatigue syndrome, as well as neurasthenia” (a patently untrue
assertion, according to the WHO).
“Many but not all patients with CFS can be given a psychiatric diagnosis…Where there is considerable concern about
concepts such as immune dysfunction (and) viral persistence, there may be greater likelihood of symptom
persistence…CFS is a disorder of effort perception….The belief that activity is damaging may be a critical
psychological target for effective rehabilitation”.
Given the extent of the international literature on ME/CFS, Sharpe and Wessely’s pre‐supposition and
apparently elective lack of knowledge about the disorder seem inexplicable.
Sharpe’s beliefs about ME/CFS include the following:
“When symptoms are found not to result from ‘genuine physical illness’, they are often attributed to mental
illness…Evidence for the superiority of new ways of thinking about and managing such patients is growing”
(BMJ:1997:315:561‐562).