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

8
Undaunted, these psychiatrists then asserted that the WHO itself had classified the same disorder in two
places in ICD‐10, once in the Neurological Section (G93.3) and also in the Mental (Behavioural) Section
(F48.0).
Once again, the psychiatrists’ claims were repudiated by the WHO, who on 23 rd January 2004 confirmed in
writing: “According to the taxonomic principles governing ICD‐10, it is not permitted for the same
condition to be classified to more than one rubric”.
The WHO further confirmed that this means that ME/CFS cannot be known as or included with
neurasthenia or any other mental or behavioural disorder, as ME/CFS is a distinct nosological disorder.
Wessely, however, does not agree: he believes that ME is a behavioural disorder and that patients’ ascription
of the disease to a virus is “somatisation par excellence” (see below).
It is Professor Wessely who is in charge of the MRC PACE Clinical Trial Unit.
There is a significant amount of documented international concern about the Wessely School’s stance and
the harm it might do to patients.
Another curious factor about the PACE Trial is the role played by one of the patients’ charities (Action for
ME), without whose help the PACE Trial might never have happened – see below. It is a Government‐
funded charity, having received substantial Section 64 funding (Health Services Act 1968) in return for
supporting DoH policy priorities (which currently include managing “CFS/ME” as a behavioural disorder).
Good science requires that hypotheses are tested in an objective manner, but there are many disturbing
aspects about the MRC PACE Trial.
Given that the Investigators have already formed their belief that “CFS/ME” is a behavioural disorder, it is
troubling to observe how they seem to have allowed their beliefs to undermine the objectivity of the trial:
• participants were to be chosen using criteria designed by the Investigators themselves rather than
using criteria accepted by the international medical community
• the Investigators’ criteria were financially supported by the Chief Investigator himself
• the Investigators abandoned their intention to use any objective measurements of outcome and will
define the self‐reported outcome measures using a scale devised by themselves (which has been
described as “a parody of modern scientific measurement” – see below)
• the Investigators have even redefined the meaning of the word “recovery” – see below.
The Investigators have received millions of pounds sterling to carry out this trial, even though they already
know the answers and they have publicly acknowledged that for ME/CFS patients their psychotherapy
interventions are not remotely curative and that many patients do not benefit from them – see below.
Part of the Trial therapists’ training appears to include misleading participants: therapists are told to assure
participants they believe their illness is “real” and to show empathy, whilst also being informed in their
training that there is no underlying pathology in “CFS/ME”, so there is one message for the therapists and
another for participants.
Therapists and research nurses must achieve “positive relationships” with participants. Research Nurses
(RNs) “will be selected and trained to achieve positive relationships with participants. In addition to seeing them for a
minimum of 5 times in 52 weeks, we will use techniques commonly employed in cohort studies to maintain
participation” (Trial Protocol, final version 5.0, 01.02.2006). This involves sending birthday cards to
participants in order to create an illusion of “warmth” and of “empathy” that is intended to elicit positive