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
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
54<br />
He concluded his presentation: “It’s confus<strong>in</strong>g, isn’t it?….ICD‐10 is not helpful and I would not suggest, as<br />
cl<strong>in</strong>icians, you use ICD‐10 criteria. They really need sort<strong>in</strong>g out, and they will be <strong>in</strong> due course, God<br />
will<strong>in</strong>g”.<br />
That was a clear <strong>in</strong>struction to cl<strong>in</strong>icians to disregard the ICD‐10 classification of <strong>ME</strong>/CFS as a neurological<br />
disorder.<br />
In an April 2009 paper, Peter White and co‐authors concluded that their data “suggest that fatigue syndromes<br />
are heterogeneous, and that CFS/<strong>ME</strong> and PVFS should be considered as separate conditions, with CFS/<strong>ME</strong> hav<strong>in</strong>g<br />
more <strong>in</strong> common with IBS (Irritable Bowel Syndrome) than PVFS does. This requires revision of the ICD‐10<br />
taxonomy, which classifies PVFS with <strong>ME</strong>” (Psychol Med 2009:Apr 15:1‐9 PMID:19366500).<br />
This seems another example of <strong>in</strong>consistency on Peter White’s part, because here he is say<strong>in</strong>g that “CFS/<strong>ME</strong>”<br />
has more <strong>in</strong> common with irritable bowel syndrome, but this is the exact opposite of his comments to NICE<br />
about the draft Guidel<strong>in</strong>e, where he asserted: “bowel symptoms are not part of CFS/<strong>ME</strong>” (St Bartholomew’s<br />
Hospital Chronic Fatigue Services, Stakeholder comments on Chapter 6 of the draft Guidel<strong>in</strong>e on “CFS/<strong>ME</strong>”,<br />
page 316). Such an assertion is all the more curious because the MRC website <strong>in</strong>cludes “gastro<strong>in</strong>test<strong>in</strong>al<br />
problems” <strong>in</strong> its description of “CFS/<strong>ME</strong>” and Peter White was <strong>in</strong>volved with the 1994 UK Task Force Report<br />
on <strong>ME</strong> / CFS / PVFS which on page 71 at section 14.6.1 states: “Given that symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome<br />
are common and that some patients develop food sensitivities, this is an area which urgently needs to be further<br />
studied”. It is therefore remarkable that <strong>in</strong> his Stakeholder submissions to the NICE draft Guidel<strong>in</strong>e twelve<br />
years later, Peter White still denied the existence of bowel problems <strong>in</strong> “CFS/<strong>ME</strong>”, yet <strong>in</strong> order to support his<br />
call for a revised ICD taxonomy, he now claims that “CFS/<strong>ME</strong>” has more <strong>in</strong> common with irritable bowel<br />
syndrome than with PVFS.<br />
Recent papers by Wessely and Hotopf have discussed fatigue and the evidence for the concept of<br />
neurasthenia – formally classified <strong>in</strong> ICD‐10 Chapter V at F48.0. As noted above, sixteen years ago, Wessely<br />
asserted that neurasthenia “would readily suffice for <strong>ME</strong>” (Lancet 1993:342:1247‐1248) and his belief rema<strong>in</strong>s<br />
firmly fixed despite the significant biomedical evidence that has emerged <strong>in</strong> the <strong>in</strong>terven<strong>in</strong>g sixteen years<br />
which proves his belief to be false.<br />
Professor Michael Sharpe and his fellow psychiatrist Professor Francis Creed (leader of the European<br />
Medically Unexpla<strong>in</strong>ed Symptoms [MUS] Study Group) are members of the DSM‐V (Diagnostic and<br />
Statistical Manual‐V that is due <strong>in</strong> May 2013) Somatic Distress Disorders Workgroup that is redef<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g the<br />
so‐called “Somatoform Disorders”.<br />
Of relevance to the PACE Trial is the proposal of the Somatic Distress Disorders Work Group to create a<br />
category of “Psychological factors affect<strong>in</strong>g a medical condition” that would allow a co‐morbid diagnosis of<br />
ʺsomatic symptom disorderʺ, thereby eras<strong>in</strong>g the <strong>in</strong>terface between psychiatry and medic<strong>in</strong>e because this<br />
proposed new category would apply equally to a “well recognized organic disease or a functional somatic<br />
syndrome such as irritable bowel syndrome or chronic fatigue syndrome” (Editorial: J Psychosom Res. 2009:<br />
66(6):473‐6 http://www.jpsychores.com/article/S0022‐3999(09)00088‐9/fulltext ).<br />
As a (nom<strong>in</strong>ally) separate project, Professor Michael Sharpe is also the UK Co‐Chair of the <strong>in</strong>ternational<br />
CISSD (Conceptual Issues <strong>in</strong> Somatoform and Similar Disorders) Project, for which the charity Action for<br />
<strong>ME</strong> (to which Professor Sharpe is an ad hoc medical advisor) was the pr<strong>in</strong>cipal adm<strong>in</strong>istrator. The only<br />
<strong>in</strong>formation that Action for <strong>ME</strong> has ever published on the project is to be found <strong>in</strong> their accounts and it is<br />
mystify<strong>in</strong>g: it is referred to as the “WHO Somatisation Project” and it says: “This grant is provided to help lobby<br />
the World Health Organisation for the recognition of M.E. and its re‐categorisation as a physical illness”. Given<br />
that the WHO has classified <strong>ME</strong> as a physical illness for the last 40 years, this statement from Action for <strong>ME</strong><br />
is <strong>in</strong>explicable.