Dear Laurie Taylor and the BBC

 

Dear Laurie Taylor,

I have listened to your show for many years. Working at home enables me to prepare a meal for the family at the time your show comes on. It is thought provoking and on the whole balanced on the side of the professional that should know better than the - put down and silenced public.

After listening to your weekly show on Wednesday 4^th January 2023, I thought the time has come to write in and explain the reality of social conditioning; with its foundation in the belief that the patient is to blame, the marketing and gatekeeping of wellness-based healthcare by a few that have the ear of the Government and the DWP. The connection here between psychiatry, the pace trial and health is discussed by Brian Hughes (hughes, 2021), the damage of the Mental Health practitioners who are taught Medically Unexplained Symptoms (MUS) but don’t understand the autoimmune response after viral infections. Jackson and Kroenke discuss the issue of not looking further than MUS  (Jackson & Kroenke, 2006) after reading this look at the list of autoimmune diseases and the complications of not addressing or understanding post viral diseases, which needs to be discussed on your program in Covid times.

The impact on mental health and autoimmune is well known the inflamed brain is also well known but ignored Edward Bullmore discusses this in his book (Bullmore, 2018). Edward Bullmore MB PHD FRCP FMedSci trained in medicine at the university of Oxford and St Bartholomew’s Hospital, London; then in psychiatry at the Bethlem Royal and Maudsley Hospital who has just published a new paper (lynall , et al., 2022) on the Genetic variants associated with psychiatric disorders are enriched at epigenetically active sites in lymphoid cells.

To understanding complexities of post viral conditions such as Long Covid and ME and the work to dismiss the long-term impacts on health and mental wellbeing, you need to understand the ever-changing names such as Functional Neurological Disorders; once called conversion disorder or Medically Unexplained Syndrome which again was once called somatization disorder, and how these impacts on the NHS and care. We should know enough about infections by now to understand the damage done. What has AIDS, Celiac, Migraines, rheumatoid Arthritis, Stomach Ulcers, and diabetes taught us?

You once had a program on the placebo effect, where you called people like me activists, you also used the term cfs another way of hiding the disease that Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME) is known to be.  You used this terminology again as some sort of derogatory label on Wednesday’s program, a put down, which I find offensive.

I wanted to explain why a difference of opinion in science, does not mean the patient/advocate or as you put it activists are wrong. The harm of demanding mental health over physical disease, has been written down over hundreds of years. Science should be based on “prove you are wrong and if you can’t then you must be right”. To use this in its proper context, first you must explore all the facts and possibilities and not rely on the foundation of opinion without the lived experience, which mental health has done with ME.

First and foremost, the derogatory term of “activist” was used on women suffragettes. Since this time women have been fighting against mental health disorders to get the right information and the right healthcare - just look at heart attacks and endometriosis with long history of social conditioning that women have “mental liabilities”.

The word activist has been used on advocates like me, who have made changes for those with autism that were put and still are in asylums or as we now know them as homes, and those who suffered from many; now known conditions that are still medical unexplained but accepted like diabetes and celiac disease.  On Wednesday’s program it was pointed out how women are targeted and held to account by society with the mind, body, wellness beliefs that have infiltrated our healthcare.  This impacts women like me, who become mothers that have children who dramatically decline into disability, with no real testing, empathy or understanding - just judgment and opinion that goes against all the science. A nurse who looked back on the Royal Free outbreak takes us through the transference of medically accepted understanding to mental health opinion used for political purposes (Ovenden, 2004) what we saw back then is being repeated again with ME and Covid.

My son was 8 when he had an obvious post viral condition, his blood showed signs that were ignored of celiac disease, which was two years later picked up. However, there were other signs of his body under stress. Instead of testing and looking for physical disease, they gave me their opinion and him CBT and dismissed his physical symptoms as somatic disorder. The harm inflicted on him is there for all to see in his lived experience, the history of medicine, and by thousands of others over decades that have been treated just like my son, starting most notably from the time of the Royal Free outbreak.

This has led to a difficult situation and long-term physical and mental care problems, not only for my son but also to me. Being accused of Fabricating or Inducing Illness (FII) is hard to fight when family courts only have to think you may cause emotional harm in order to take your child away, backed by opinion with no evidence. If a mother restricts a diet for instance, she is automatically assumed guilty even with Drs notes giving clear evidence of autoimmune diseases. Unbelievable you would think but the evidence is all around us. It is written in case studies, in the voices of the young people able to speak out on social media. How many are hidden that are frightened and fighting for the truth.

Please stop using inflammatory words such as activist, when you have not fully understood the problems by alluding to those who are on the internet or on social media. We have seen the damage when a general opinion about misinformation is put out by journalists, professionals, and medical professionals the PACE trial shows this. You did touch on professional misinformation but I feel you need a program to look further into this. We need robust understating of what wellness and mental health is going forward especially when evidence points to the reality spoken by activists like me.

You also stated about abuse on the medical professionals from advocates in the ME community on the program about the placebo program. However, this has been disproven and the last time this accusation was used on the ME community it was by Professor Crawley who held up a poster done by an artist who asked Professor Crawley not to use his work in her TED talk. Fabrication in the medical world it would seem is allowed, but those using science and facts are called FII supporters or activists, so please put the record straight, the facts are here (Lowe, 2017)

Remember science, healthcare providers the government get it wrong and do politicly chose to misinform the public and there is a balance that needs to be met here by respected people like yourself, it is your duty, especially as we go through this difficult pandemic time. Patients can be more informed about their condition than those who say they treat the condition.

As a balance and redress of the issues I have raised around activism, wellness, and healthcare in this letter it would be good to have Brian Hughes who is an academic psychologist and university professor in Galway Ireland. He specialises in stress, health, and the application of psychology to social issues. He has written widely on the psychology of empiricism and of empirically disputable claims especially as they pertain to science, health , medicine and politics. Along with Edward Bullmore MB PHD FRCP FMedSci the balance of our understanding, thinking and wellbeing would be balanced with what we know.

If you could let me know in good time, when this much need balanced program is to be aired, I would be grateful. We all have to take responsibility for the facts of science to protect the population and patients in particular – Health is a balance of diet, social standing, environment, physical and mental impacting on genetics stressors and should be seen as a whole, not in part or bias opinion.

 

Yours Sincerely

 

Tina Rodwell

 

Mothers Accused of FII Because Their Children Have ME Why?

“Why do the doctors hate me so much mum?”

I look down at my son wrapped in a leaden body, full of lactic acid, brain fog that muddles his thinking like my grandad’s Alzheimer’s, with moments of crystal clarity that lulled you into a false sense of security.

“Hate is a strong word my boy”

“But they really do mum; I can see it in their eyes”

I kiss the top of his head and I recognised his truth. His forehead was clammy. I gulp down the panic as I feel his little heart pound like a thundering train.

“They don’t hate you; they just don’t know how to help you.”

“They don’t even try, mum”

I had taken his temperature it was 35.4 his nausea was bad, he had his eyes closed trying to dispel the urge to be sick, constantly dizzy with glands like conkers, but I could not take him to the doctors. I knew they were running out of patience with me, with him. I had never been scared of doctors before, I was now.

I knew what could happen; two of my friends had had their children taken away. It had taken 30 days from the hospital suggesting that a 2-4 week stay in hospital; without visiting from mum. They assessed rehabilitation was appropriate medical intervention at that time. A policeman knocking down the door physically taking the child away, it was deemed appropriate action at that time? I look down at my restless son and knew he would never cope.

One of the children that were taken away for rehabilitation to hospital, came out tube fed; it was all hushed up nothing in the papers, no action taken against the paediatric doctor responsible or hospital and I would never have believed this could happen. I lost touch with the other mother, so have no idea. This trauma they put families through is happening every week, if not daily. Some manage to get away and find another way or just fade into the distance.

A week ago, the physio had taken my son out of the consultation room so that I could have a word with the psychiatrist, it was prearranged mutually and I was comfortable. The physio and psychiatrist were part of the team helping us, I thought to cope with ME, I believed and trusted them. That ended when the physio had taken him off happy and when I saw him next he was in an elated state, he had managed to do all the exercises and as the physio had made eye contact with me, she took great pains in telling me that he had NO TROUBLE DOING ANY OF THEM!

Although I was taken aback; as they had previously educated me in how even putting on socks had to be factored in as an activity, I trusted them that they would not do harm and was hopeful this was the turning point of his recovery. He didn’t recover though; he slid dramatically down and was now in constant pain and mostly bedbound.  

They called a meeting for the next week, asking for all the family to attend. A team meeting they said was needed as things were not progressing as they should. My husband and I were happy and thought we were getting somewhere. We sat in the room as they explained that they had taken some advice from a colleague; who had great expertise in this field, and it could not be Chronic Fatigue Syndrome because our son was detreating on Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and this was most unusual. They were going to look at the diagnosis again with a view of re-diagnosing. They questioned me and my husband on what had happened to our son after the last appointment. I kept quiet and just looked on closely at the group huddled together around my husband, while my husband spoke in his frank and honest way. They seemed to inch ever closer on his every word.

I dismiss the scene from my mind. I looked down at the grey faced boy with those familiar dark panda circles around his sunken eyes. A deep sigh escaped me, at least he was asleep. I put my legs against his cold ones avoiding his feet as warm as toast.

I had received a letter that morning, more or less demanding permission to take our son into hospital for rehabilitation. After mopping the floor and cleaning the house, I had sat down and  had written a letter to my sister-in-law and my dearest friend. I was asking them to hold on to it until such time they took my son away. I rang them to tell them what it was about and not to open the letter, to keep it sealed and only give it to the solicitor of which I gave them the details I hoped this would show a court if need be, that what I suspected to happen had. Hoping this would give a more balanced view of the situation and some understanding into the facts of ME.

My friend’s reaction was touching; they immediately came round in support. They were astounded and gobsmacked over the letter I had received, and were ready to march so justice could be done, but march where, I asked, who will listen? This has been going on for decades I explained.

What is wrong with these people, how can they do such a thing. I thought there was Hippocratic Oath. How can they not understand ME? They only have to look at him, and you. You are a mother we all look up to, the one we all go to when we need help. They both spat the words against the medical staff, the system, the GPs response, interchangeable with vigour, but it was no good. Their words were not going to change events. I’ve rang the Tymes Trust the only Charity I trust, they will help I’m sure, I reassure them.

You see I had researched the history of how mass hysteria had given a foot hold of loosely based mental health explanations of ME. How the psychiatrists had lobbied to self-promote the idea, other disciplines happy to delegate responsibility. The Department of Work and Pensions, the insurance industry, and Government were jumping for joy that they could all offload the “ME problem” and keep the truth under wraps.

The National Health Service along with NICE Guidelines seemed to say the right things to the charities, but played bat and ball with the reality. The General Medical Council only took action against anyone who opposed the status quo, with ethics committees seemingly blind to the consequences of their actions. While the Medical Research Council stood by and let it all happen and even if the courts intervened; those involved directly or indirectly to the PACE trial, were allowed to ignore the courts and carry on spouting their rhetoric. All other academic fraternities and medical departments turned their backs on those that suffered. The amount of families stressed to breaking point, hidden. All of them that should know better, loosely agreed with the notion ME could be linked to mental health; they did not want an untreatable illness on their books, clogging up their promotion and self-esteem? Whistle blowing is only worth doing if there is treatment to fall back on, and only the bravest try.

You have very little choice; as a women even in 2017, but to be embroiled in femininity and argue about your sensibilities. Motherhood is a double edged sword it seems. You are stripped of identity and accused of everything they can throw at you. You have to stand stripped necked and humiliated, play the system so that no harm could come to your child, and I find it barbaric, beyond words. There is no control or restriction on mental health's abilities to run riot and rough shod over general health.

You find out you are a stronger woman than you thought, as you catch each accusation and start to juggle. Mental health is steeped on you because of a wondering womb, hormones, autoimmune problems or deferring understanding from every side of the medical profession, all baying for funding. Little truth seeps through and everyone it seems allows this to happen. Then a light, a glimmer of a sparkle shines and you hope. But is hope going to be enough?

My son starts to babble on and like a brook in spring; his body ripples and sings in the moonlight. As my tears flows to him, I wonder what the best action would be. I force the tears back and breathe deeply as I unhook my arm from his grasp.

It is common practice to accuse a mother of Fabrication or Inducing Illness (FII) when their child has ME and does not recover in the specified 6 months. The only research they talk in the media is exercising yourself to health, taking responsibility of your illness and the anxiety that is ME/CFS. You write letters and fight, but you are just one of many voices that fall on turned backs.

As a mother of a child with ME I have never asked for extravagant tests, treatment or operations the classic signs of FII. Yet because of the social landscaping of ME, and untruths told, they can still get FII through the courts with little to no resistance. Even if you put up the best of evidence their backs are turned and their ears closed, they let it happen?

If I agree to the rehabilitation in hospital, I wonder as the first glow of the new dawn star-lighting through the kitchen window; to what I know is harmful treatment, who would help my son recover? Would anyone know how to help him recover? Who would get justice for him? Who would stop the harm done to him? 

The answers to these questions are for all to see in the history of ME, the answer:

No one, not one of you will do no harm! For doing nothing, is harming over 25,000 children in the UK that suffer from ME. Still known harmful treatments have got through ethics committees????? Parents are accused of fII, none have been charged. The Children are taken and harmed by rehabilitation and the result of harmful research is hushed up in the UK in 2017. They do not report decline of health or ability as a harm in research, why is that?

The glimmer of hope are a few Dr’s like Dr Speight that are true heroes, who stand firm with mum's like me, with a few other brave souls that are hounded by the PACE trial crew who try to show the truth behind the myth. It is truly truly SHAMEFUL how this is allowed to continue!

Me and my boy what happened to us. We learnt to fight stand tall and announce to the world ME is a very serious life changing illness, with no treatment, and no sound prognosis but we hope. At any time there could be a knock on my door, it is hard to live with but sometime you have to stand up for what is truth!

With your support behind us adding to our voice and demanding change, we can change the medical profession and the NICE guidelines and start to tackle the last big medical condition of our time.

As a mother you are Gaslighted and I explain a little her of how it feels

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjWjCaIoJPs&t=154s

Is The BBC Under Government Controll?

BBC Complaints Told Me I Was Toxic?

Well That Fluffed Up My Tail-Feathers!!!

I got the same responce as Countess Mar; more or less the same word for word response. So I wrote a reply

I don’t believe I will get a level or concise response, and will think about making a complaint to Ofcom. Again I do not envisage getting much of a reply there either but feel you have to start somewhere.

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/2016/11/bbc-director-general-replies-to-countess-of-mar-about-coverage-of-the-fitnet-nhs-trial-24-november-2016/

Here is my reply and what do you think I should do next? Any point to it?

Ref: Cas-4074869-G7PJ8J

21^st November 2016

Dear Brian Irvine,

I was deeply unhappy and saddened by your response to my complaint about the mis-information 1^st November 2016 on the Joanna Gosling Show. The BBC is required to be accurate in reporting facts, impartial, and I would say, needs to be respectful to all.

To use the word Toxic in a letter about a medical condition in my view is unprofessional, and undeserving against a medical condition which is so devastating to so many, including very young children, I did take it personally.

Unfortunately I found no response to any of my questions raised, even though it stated that you had “reviewed the programme in light of your concern.” I raised many concerns!

You go on to say the discussion “was on the back of news that a therapy which successfully treats two thirds of children.” My complaint pointed out this was very misleading, not least because the trial had not even started. Furthermore the Dutch trial it is based upon, proved no long term benefit, and had no realistic harm definition, due to the known consequences of over activity in ME sufferers. 

My further point is that you have not included up-to-date research which would have made a big difference to the understanding of this disease and would allow the viewer a more balanced and unbiased view. You should have kept your selves informed and up to date with this illness.

You rely heavily on one particular group of people that the Science Media Centre (SMC) protects, and that have been discredited in their research and claims against other researchers, charities and suffers, the latter never getting an independent voice on national BBC Radio or News, only on some local BBC radio stations.

Listening to Steve Helwetts Media show’s interview with Fran Unsworth Deputy Head of the BBC News and on the board of the SMC, giving assurances the emerging government funding may cloud the transparency and threatens unbiased reporting, I am concerned in this case those blurrings of reporting; “knowing the government is listening”, is not as transparent at she would like?

My understanding of ME is a neurological, musculoskeletal condition with autonomic dysfunction, which causes abnormalities in the nervous system, autoimmune, cardiac, immunological and metabolomics systems putting the body in a dauer (meaning “endurance” “duration” “permanent” type of stasis (a period of state of inactivity) to survive) state. Causing problems: of a continual infections state, general inflammation, inflammatory of gut with connective tissue damage. If undiagnosed or treated in the wrong way for the individual, this can and does have life threatening consequences.

ME/CFS is now under review with NICE, taking into account the new and fast changing understanding of this multisystem chronic condition.

Points Raised from your reply to my concerns:

1.      The program never mentioned the discredited PACE trial of this type of treatment and should have been used pivotal in the debate. It was published in 2011 and was hailed by the SMC and the UK media in general as successful, also funded by the National Institute for Health and Research and Department of Work and Pensions. It was discredited and could have shown the viewers more balance. None of the patient’s views or experiences of this trial; to my knowledge have been actively sought. Unfounded and exaggerated accusations towards severely ill patients have been made by those involved directly or indirectly with the trial, and most if not all have been unfounded. One such patient at great personal health and cost obtained the raw data from the PACE trial through a reviling court case, where the judge dismissed the many dispersion's by the two standing against the data release. The re-analysis by independent statisticians found the data to be fraudulent and that instead of the claimed recovery figure of 22% after CBT and GET, the actual figures were only 7% for CBT and 4% for GET. So therefore the PACE trial was null. This bears direct evidence for parents to base their informed opinion on, for the FitnetNHS trial, which seems to be more or less the same treatment.

2.      The findings of the Dutch study itself, which was quoted by Professor Crawley was inaccurate (66% of participants were said to be “cured”) because it grossly exaggerated and mis-represented the findings of its small trial (Professor Crawley dismisses other scientific provable studies, as irrelevant due to their size). This study forms the basis of evidence of efficacy, so should have been questioned. They purported there was a significant difference in school attendance at six months between CBT and usual care (75% vs 16%). They did not make it clear that children who stay at home to receive treatment are at a big advantage, as travelling and going to hospital can make ME sufferers relapse. The ultimate findings showed no difference at 2 year follow-up. The presenter did not question this and failed in her duty to mention the “recovery” were virtually the same as for the entry criteria into the trial. The two principal investigators of the PACE trial professors White and Chalder commented on that fact “recovery” criteria was liberal and “not stringent”, a point that patients pointed out on the PACE trial and were called vexatious. 

3.      Behavioural theories play a heavy part in Professors Crawley’s Protocol. This theory has been discredited and deflated to the point of not applicable by most in the medical community. This theory was also applied to the Gulf War veterans, who largely suffer the same symptoms, and in the beginning were treated the same way. The implications of the protocol weigh heavily on the mothers parenting style. In this regard the Dutch protocol calls into question “The fact that long term recovery was negatively associated with maternal focus on bodily symptoms could be seen as an indication that during treatment the influence of this specific predictor had not been adequately addressed. And goes on to say a “separate programme for the mother is needed”. This I find rather strange as the trial is child led, by them being involved and reporting on their symptoms? Would this emphasis be acceptable for other neurological conditions or other autoimmune illnesses?

4.      SMILE Trial was never brought up in the conversations, though this is based on the same principles of the FitNetNHS trial. Yet again Crawley weighed heavily on the intervention of mothers and never released the data to show evidence, just alluded to its outcome, that mothers were responsible for noncompliance. What is more probable is that the children were no longer able to take part. The harms, just a small mention of one child and one mother going to hospital, the information however ebbs and flows or gets taken down from the internet. This trial was based on the controversial Lightning Process. This withheld information could have helped mothers like me, to make a more informed choice.

5.      The protocol leaves the option open to question the mother's nurturing style. This should have been robustly questioned in the interview.  Why is the necessity of this over bearing importance on the mother in a curative treatment throughout her trials, when the child has a physiological illness and is why I mentioned Karina Hansen. As Mary Jane Willows (AYME) works closely with Professor Crawley and for Children and their families who have been persecuted in this way, I am very surprised this approach has been acceptable to both of them.

6.      You mention Lizzie Horgan; who I believe was on the Woman’s Hour program some time back, again with Professor Crawley, and brings into focus my main point. Lizzie is learning to live with a debilitating illness, she is not recovered. I would say Lizzie is a level headed individual who is resilient and a great advocate for the ME community.

7.      Diagnosis for this trial: Professor Crawley says is based on the NICE guidelines, but she omits the cardinal characteristic of Post-Exertional Malaise (PEM). This error by stealth has now transformed their prospective cohort into fatigue only. This will lead to confusion and make the findings null and void to ME sufferers. This does not give clarity to doctors, social workers, educators, or parent/carers and can lead to great harm.

8.      You mention Jane Colby; she was given a room with others talking and laughing in the background, which must have been very distracting to talk over as it was to listen to. I found that very disrespectful to a lady who tirelessly works to impart the truth to schools about this complex illness and gain some proper treatment for children with ME.

9.      There should have been another researcher or medical expert that could have given a balance to the debate. Dr Speight unlike Professor Crawley has helped many severely ill children with ME and it would have been most helpful to hear his views on this matter. Doctor Speight has given many talks on the subject of children with ME and was part of the group for the International Consensus Criteria, which is highly regarded by researchers in the ME field. He also understands the importance of PEM.

There are many more researchers in the UK such as Professor Newton, Professor Malcolm Hooper, Professor J Edwards (his open letter about the email sent by Professor Holgate shows how the disregard to ME patients, other charities and researchers, perpetrates through some medical circles, not however protected by SMC), Professor J English, to name a few. Unfortunately they have been hampered by many in the SMC, who have chosen not to report on their findings and on the biomedical pathology presented at the International Association at Fort Lauderdale October 2016

It would seem Professor Holgate's interventions through, amongst other measures, email against young researchers such as Keith Geraghty goes unnoticed. His treatment by some of those involved in the MEGA study has been disparaging over the last few years and you would have assumed a young researcher would have been actively sought and supported by those in the ME field. His efforts have been welcomed by the ME/CFS community and most charities.

10.  You say that the BBC cannot ignore stories like this, however you did ignore the bigger story of the PACE trial going to court and that outcome, and this shows a great deal of bias in your reporting. You also have neglected to report on the British Government becoming the first ever to be investigated by the United Nations for disabled human rights abuses. That it has condemned the “functional” assessments used by the DWP that were developed by the Wessley School using ME sufferers on the PACE trial biopsychosocial model.

11.  You never covered the question of not including the Karina Hansen story that broke at the same time as Professor Crawley came on the show? Neither did you address Sophia Mirza (whose autopsy showed physical problems), Emily Collingridge or Naomi Whittington and it has been brought to my attention of the court case of Ean Proctor. These four young women and young man, are worthy of a mention and to question treatment to illustrate the problems of over emphasising on the mothers input, and the problems that Tymes Trust deal with. They also prove what can happen if you push your body too hard.

12.  However it was the website references that you gave as evidence of a broad range of CFS/ME research that had me the most perplexed. It had just one biomedical study of old, one that show the difficulties that all research faces when trials go wrong, and two that show, the now discredited information about the difficulties the ME community possess towards researchers, which should be amended with some urgency. This I do not consider a balanced or unbiased view:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-31644618 One story to show biomedical research from 2015 which has moved on considerably and had very little relevance to Dr Crawley’s study. Furthermore, it was not an interview with the researcher herself and was given very little space, though I note you have a remark by Professor White who failed to mention his own study which pointed to the trouble sufferers have when traveling with increase of inflammation? Though I am no expert, I do feel this was relevant to Dr Crawley trial as I mentioned earlier about the travel:

Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Vol. 12(2) 2004 http://www.haworthpress.com/web/JCFS  2004 by The Haworth Press, Inc. All rights reserved. Digital Object Identifier: 10.1300/J092v12n02_06

we found elevated concentrations of plasma transforming growth factor beta (TGF-ß), even before exercise, in subjects with CFS (median (IQR) of 904 (182-1072) pg/ml) versus controls (median (IQR) of 50 (45-68) pg/ml) (P < .001). Traveling from home to the hospital significantly elevated TGF-ß concentrations from a resting median (IQR) concentration of 1161 (130-1246) pg/ml to a median (IQR) concentration of 1364 (1155-1768) pg/ml (P < .02). There was also a sustained increase in plasma tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNF-cc) after exercise in CFS patients, but not in controls (P = .004 for the area under the curve), although traveling had no such effect. CD3, CD4 and HLA DR-expressing lymphocyte counts were lower in CFS patientshttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J092v12n02_06

One about contamination and a retraction of the paper in 2011. I have no idea why you have given this as evidence of unbiased reporting,  as again it was not an interview and this debate again has moved on. Though if you had debated the PACE trial, which had similar problems I could have understood its inclusion. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-15017660

You have never mentioned one of the many important papers and would suggest how wrong it would be to do any form of extended or keep going life style. http://www.openmedicinefoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Naviaux-PNAS-CFS-Metabolomics-2016.pdf  

Maureen Hanson:

https://microbiomejournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40168-016-0171-4

Then there is all the work Fluge and Mella have been doing since 2011

The one about Tom Fieldings story that was given to him from the Science Media Centre, should have never been included. Dr Crawley admitted in a radio broadcast in July 2011 that she had not received explicit death threats but had misinterpreted one email to constitute a death threat and that her local police force had taken no action. Including this I find insulting to me personally, and to the ME community in general. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14326514

These allegations were unfounded and should never be used against people trying to get to the hidden truth as regards to their very debilitating illness. In October 2016 they were dismissed by the judge at the First tier tribunal as “Without foundation” and “wild speculation”.  These were the same people that have continually been part of your news with regards to ME/CFS.  This type of tactic is used time and time again against all but a few that are protected by the SMC . I fail to see the relevance of the evidence you gave me of your unbiased interviews. To use the word Toxic in relation to any person, researcher or association is unprofessional and a strange term to use. It is unforgivable to use it when you know it to be untrue!

The last one was of the group of people you have reported on throughout your listings given and is very confusing. No coverage was given to any other professional with just a link to Prof Sir Liam Donaldson who states it is a “biomedical condition” but you have to press on the link which rather proves my point about your biased reporting? None of these are interviews or proper debates.

This was again an article by “By James Gallagher” and I think it would have been more appropriate if you had put in his: “The Inflamed Mind” BBC radio 4 program, can your immune system make you psychotic, as it seems to me this has more relevance to ME/CFS - as it would seem research is gaining more information and understanding on ME, it is looking more likely to be an inflammatory, autoimmune, and metabolic, dysregulation affecting the heart, putting the body in a dauer state. It saddens me our researchers have been held back by funding and more importantly support and less ridicule from the SMC is needed to carry these research forward in this country.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14883651

13.  To openly say that the FitNetNHS trial promise recovery is in breach of many medical codes of conduct and to mislead patients by promising a cure when there is no such certainty, is in breach of the General Medical Council Regulations as set out in “Good Medical Practice” (2006) which was brought to my attention by the Countess of  Mar.

“Providing and publishing information about your services-paragraphs 60-62

60. If you publish information about your medical services, you must make sure the information is: factual and verifiable

61. You must not make unjustifiable claims about the quality or outcomes of your services in any information you provide to patients. It must not offer guarantees of cures”

This concludes my response to your points over my concerns

I would like to say why this matter is of the deepest concern to me. I am a mother of a 11 Year old boy who wakes up every morning as though lead fills his veins, the headaches are intense, nose bleeds, high and low blood pressure and heart rate, can black out when he sits up or standing still too long, unable to see, cognitive dysfunction so bad that he forgets his name or where he is. In short he is in so much pain and lack of cognition he has no life to speak of. He was 8 when he was rushed to hospital; no scans were performed and not many investigations. They ran through his history and when it became apparent that he had a virus of some sort, they just gave a diagnosis of somatisation/CFS.

After two years of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, where I was put under immense scrutiny and pressure for my son to recover and my son was told no one will take any notice of his symptoms, my son became withdrawn. I would say after his treatment by ill-informed medical professionals, his strength of character is immense, because he took his treatment on the chin. He never spoke of his increasing pain; he learnt to cope with it. This we found out later should have been taken seriously, and will possibly have lifelong consequences as it was a warning of things going wrong. ME, by the World Health Organisation is recognised as neurological disorder. Step back and think how this must feel for both him and me.

Our restraint and dignity I would suggest, far outweighs the behaviour of the doctors and researchers, SMC, government, MRC and the BBC that insist this is more a matter of mind over body.

He also had Graded Exercise Therapy, which to me in the beginning made perfect sense; you just have to gently get your body back into the swing of life, like any other illness.  But if you read up on sepsis, meningitis, diabetes, the symptoms and the way the heart is involved are connected. Not all illness give way to recovery. Your information does form doctors', educators', social workers' and people in general's understanding and directly influences people’s perceptions, as shown in the links you gave me.

We later found out that he had post orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (PoTS), undiagnosed from the very start and one of the 1986 ME diagnosis criteria by Dr Ramsey? Yet many doctors do not look out for or understand this when suspecting ME/CFS. However, this is not on the Oxford Criteria. If you look up PoTS on the NHS web site choices, you will find a connection to CFS. This is never mentioned by Professor Crawley? NICE guidelines also stipulate a heart monitor should be worn when exercising, I do not think Professor Crawley does this either and I would say this is a worry.

We also found my son was a Coeliac suffer, his reading for the protein was very high and as yet is not coming down enough to be measured on his blood tests. This would have done great harm to my son’s body and he has now grown 6cm in the last couple of months, showing his body was effectively being starved of nutrients.

To complain about these misdiagnoses and our treatment; I have been informed would put me under threat, mothers are accused of Munchausen by proxy. We cannot learn from these types of errors if we do not take account of mistakes. Reading the protocol of the FitnetNHS trial, and listening to Professor Crawley, it is hardly surprising mothers get blamed for their children not recovering. I would say that people misunderstand the seriousness and disability of ME. Over 200 families have gone through this with very sick children, who have been accused, and none have been found guilty. Yet no one ever looks into the behaviour of professionals as to why this happens to innocent families fighting against a chronic illness. Social services or education authorities are left making decisions with not all facts being put forward on the media of the medical understanding, and this why I mentioned Karina Hansen and Sophia. The public should be made aware of this.

Since Professor Crawley made her rounds on the BBC media circuit, many mothers have been harassed to send their children to school and several have been reported to the social services, this I feel is a direct response to your biased media coverage. If you look on the internet for information from the BBC it is clear what message you send out. The reporting is one sided and the truth scilenced.

As a mother you are not safeguarded and it would seem have no rights above the Doctors, educators, social services concerns over safeguarding your child, therefore no balance of facts. If the Doctor you are under does not fully understand your child with ME, and they write to the school stating your child can attend school for 5 hours a week, you as a parent have to comply. If you do not send your child to school for those five hours a week on a regular basis; as happens with children that are fighting this illness, then the school have a duty of care to inform the attendance officer no matter how they may feel about that child’s health or wellbeing. The attendance officer then brings in the school nurse and the social services and because of the misinformation and wrong impression of ME, they then put the child on a protection order. This whole process can take as little as 30 days. The police can break your door down and forcefully take your child away, without you being aware of any safeguarding issue.

Even if the mother has been proven not guilty by a court of law, most of the time the child is harmed by the process and foster careers not understanding this chronic illness, and in some cases they never recover. No one, it would seem, cares to look through the cases to find if the same doctors are making these mistakes many times with one particular illness. Neither do they review cases and make sure the child recovers, with some children getting lost in the system forever.

I hope the above information makes it clear why you should take the time to fully investigate, and that you have the facts, and I would respectfully ask you to make amends. To give unbiased and a balance to the behavioural interventions that you have promoted, and provide the same platform you offered Professor Crawley to those that have worked hard, and tirelessly to provide grounded and provable evidence of the biomedical problems and aetiology that is now emerging.

More importantly allow people who suffer a voice and not ridicule.

Kind Regards

Tina Rodwell