MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME
MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME
MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
39<br />
The answer may be found <strong>in</strong> the fact that the team advis<strong>in</strong>g the Bagnall (non‐medical) review team at York<br />
was led by Professor Simon Wessely, whose own data‐base was orig<strong>in</strong>ally provided for the CRD team, a fact<br />
confirmed by the UK’s Chief Medical Officer <strong>in</strong> a personal communication <strong>in</strong> September 1999.<br />
Hav<strong>in</strong>g serious concerns about both the PACE and FINE Trials and the Wessely School studies upon which<br />
they relied, <strong>in</strong> October 2004 David Sampson, a psychopharmacologist / neurophysiologist and Tutor <strong>in</strong><br />
experimental design and statistical analysis (a previous recipient of an MRC grant for his research <strong>in</strong>to<br />
neuropharmacology), submitted a formal compla<strong>in</strong>t to the MRC <strong>in</strong> which he said:<br />
“I am appalled to have to br<strong>in</strong>g to the attention of the MRC that it would appear that both massage of diagnostic<br />
criteria and experimental protocol… appears to be tak<strong>in</strong>g place <strong>in</strong> two areas of research <strong>in</strong>to CFS/<strong>ME</strong>. These are<br />
not allegations to be taken lightly and I expect the MRC to launch an immediate <strong>in</strong>vestigation”.<br />
Referr<strong>in</strong>g to the MRC’s own 2003 Research Advisory Group’s Report (CFS/<strong>ME</strong> Research Strategy; 1 st May<br />
2003), Sampson’s compla<strong>in</strong>t mentioned that he “noted that the panel which formed the basis of your report<br />
consisted of at least three members who have worked or have been connected with the Cognitive Behavioural Treatment<br />
group at K<strong>in</strong>g’s and who pla<strong>in</strong>ly condone their CBT policy….The Whit<strong>in</strong>g Review consisted chiefly of studies <strong>in</strong>to CBT<br />
(and the Review) panel were ‘helped <strong>in</strong> <strong>in</strong>terpret<strong>in</strong>g these studies by an expert <strong>in</strong> the field of CFS/<strong>ME</strong>’ who was<br />
responsible for publish<strong>in</strong>g most of the research that they were supposedly review<strong>in</strong>g. This I found astound<strong>in</strong>g”.<br />
David Sampson’s compla<strong>in</strong>t to the MRC was not addressed; he was <strong>in</strong>formed by Elizabeth Mitchell (well‐<br />
known to the UK <strong>ME</strong>/CFS community) effectively that the MRC was not <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> his compla<strong>in</strong>t.<br />
It is perhaps worth not<strong>in</strong>g that dur<strong>in</strong>g the life of the MRC’s Research Advisory Group (RAG) on CFS/<strong>ME</strong> <strong>in</strong><br />
2002 ‐ 2003, a significant amount of fully referenced documentation about the biomedical nature of <strong>ME</strong>/CFS<br />
was submitted – some of it by Recorded Delivery ‐‐ to Elizabeth Mitchell at the MRC but was<br />
unacknowledged and wholly ignored.<br />
S<strong>in</strong>ce the MRC was not will<strong>in</strong>g to <strong>in</strong>vestigate his compla<strong>in</strong>t, at the All Party Parliamentary Group on <strong>ME</strong><br />
(APPG<strong>ME</strong>) on 22 nd January 2008 a pre‐publication copy of David Sampson’s analysis of Peter White’s 2001<br />
paper <strong>in</strong> the Lancet (2001:358:9297:1946‐1953) was put <strong>in</strong>to the hands of the Health M<strong>in</strong>ister <strong>in</strong> person, who<br />
promised to look <strong>in</strong>to the issues it conta<strong>in</strong>ed (ie. evidence that Peter White’s 2001 study was flawed and that<br />
his conclusions about the benefit of CBT/GET were not supported by his own data).<br />
Noth<strong>in</strong>g came of the M<strong>in</strong>ister’s personal promise. The M<strong>in</strong>ister <strong>in</strong> question was Ann Keen MP, who was<br />
Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Health. It is the case that <strong>in</strong> June 2009, <strong>in</strong> The Daily Telegraph’s<br />
“Complete Expenses Files” that documented the expenses claims of elected Members of Parliament, Ann<br />
Keen and her husband were dubbed “Mr and Mrs Expenses”, with the comment: “the husband and wife MPs<br />
claimed almost £40,000 a year on a central London flat although their family home was less than ten miles away”.<br />
Not only did noth<strong>in</strong>g come of the M<strong>in</strong>ister’s promise but, although accepted by the Journal of Chronic<br />
Fatigue Syndrome, David Sampson’s paper was never published because the Journal ceased publication and<br />
was bought by Psychology Press (the Taylor and Francis Group).<br />
Neither did anyth<strong>in</strong>g come of the Gibson Inquiry’s Report (see below) that <strong>in</strong> 2006 called for an <strong>in</strong>quiry <strong>in</strong>to<br />
the vested <strong>in</strong>terests of the Wessely School (and of Peter White <strong>in</strong> particular), about which Jane Spencer from<br />
the Department of Health recently wrote: “The Department of Health was not <strong>in</strong>volved <strong>in</strong> produc<strong>in</strong>g that report,<br />
and has no plans to respond to its f<strong>in</strong>d<strong>in</strong>gs”<br />
(http://www.facebook.com/edittopic.php?uid=154801179671&topic=10499&action=4#/topic.php?uid=154801<br />
179671&topic=10550).