The danger is that the long list of symptoms above can still, unintentionally, underplay their severity and seriousness, the totally disabling nature and the individual intensity of each one, which together add up to a physical nightmare of indescribable proportion for a person with M.E. and more especially in Severe M.E.
The daily reality of people living with Severe M.E. is much worse than not having the 'basic energy' to engage in daily tasks, while that of people with Very Severe/Profound M.E. is so horrendous, there just aren't words to describe how awful it is - pain, paralysis, cognitive issues, multiple hypersensitivities, profound system dysfunction, malnutrition, and many more horrenduous symptoms.
Much like the disease Multiple Sclerosis, people can be affected in
different ways. Severe cases often leave affected individuals confined to bed,
needing tube feeding and 24 hour care. Less severe cases are usually confined to their home living without the basic energy to engage in ordinary simple self-care and household
activities like showering, washing hair, brushing teeth, making a meal, etc. Milder
cases may be able to function at a higher level, but energy is very limited, and
each task involves pacing and prolonged resting to restore enough energy for
the next task.
3. What is CFS?
Many people, including healthcare professionals, confuse the term M.E. with C.F.S.
(Chronic Fatigue Syndrome).
The term CFS was first used in medical literature by the Centre for
Disease Control, USA during the 1980s to describe an outbreak of an M.E. type
illness in Lake Tahoe. The criteria used
for this ‘new’ illness focused on the fatigue elements of patients' symptoms and
ignored the encephalitic (inflammation of the brain) features of the disorder. The
name 'CFS' trivialised the seriousness of how ill these patients were and over time led
to more and more people, with fatigue as their primary symptom, to get a
diagnosis of CFS. And so, began the confusion between M.E. and CFS leading to a
commonly used hybrid term ME/CFS.
Many CFS patients do not fulfil the criteria for M.E. and similarly many
patients with M.E. have received a CFS diagnosis.
Over decades this conflation of the two illnesses has led to underfunding for research, lack of research, lack of education about M.E. and Severe M.E., resulting in the neglect of people with M.E., people who are suffering horrendous symptoms and
whose doctors only see a patient who has unexplained 'fatigue'.
The distinction between M.E. and CFS has continued to cause problems
for researchers, doctors, governments, health agencies and patient organisations. Many began to use
the terms interchangeably or with the combined acronym ME/CFS, creating a broad
disease category that has no official classification. There is no disease classified as ME/CFS.
ME Advocates Ireland (MEAI) advocate for the adoption and use of the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (M.E.) label. We call for the separation of ‘M.E.’ from ‘CFS’.
We do not recognize CFS as per Fukuda, M.E./CFS as per the Canadian Consensus Criteria (CCC), or SEID (NAM) as an accurate diagnosis for M.E. and believe that the quagmire of the above mentioned criteria and other various criteria available worldwide has led to confusion, lack of healthcare and treatment, and lack of sufficient research on M.E., however
- we acknowledge that people with M.E. or CFS in Ireland have been diagnosed with either the M.E. or CFS label or both, i.e. M.E./CFS;
- we acknowledge that others in Ireland and elsewhere use the CFS and M.E./CFS labels and we do not wish to withhold support from those who have been given a diagnosis of CFS, or M.E./CFS;
- we appreciate that the CFS label is used to refer to M.E. in general in other countries but are unsure if those that are diagnosed with CFS are actually receiving appropriate treatment;
- we recognise that the CFS or M.E./CFS label is used throughout international research but again are not sure what patients are being identified for research purposes and on what criteria their diagnosis is based;
- we acknowledge that conflated labels such as M.E./CFS and CFS/M.E. are used by others though we do not use them, or advocate for their usage;
- we recognise that the CFS/M.E. label is mostly used by the psych cabal and associates who have caused so many issues around M.E. for decades;
- we recognise that it is critical that there is more biomedical research to further investigate and validate our understanding of M.E. and to increase knowledge of the different sub-groups of M.E.
The problem with 'Fatigue'
The emphasis on fatigue unfortunately 'allowed' M.E. to become more and more disappeared and to be defined by some as a psychiatric illness, thus condemning some very seriously ill patients to a lack of proper diagnosis, lack of appropriate testing, lack of treatment and understanding of the symptoms and more importantly a lack of interest in pursuing biological research for the condition.
4. How is M.E. diagnosed?
There is a myth that M.E. is difficult to diagnose because 'tests' don't
show anything wrong with the patient. This is simply not true. Patients with
M.E. are often given a diagnosis of CFS, or Post Viral Fatigue or, even worse ‘Chronic Fatigue’, making it look like patients are just 'tired' people.
Many worldwide experts (including Ireland’s Prof Austin Darragh)
came together and produced comprehensive diagnostic criteria called the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis International Consensus Criteria (2011) – ICC-M.E. Please see the ICC 2011 here.
The “Myalgic Encephalomyelitis – International Consensus Criteria
(M.E. ICC)” advocates for removing fatigue as a characteristic symptom and
defines the disorder as an acquired neurological disease with complex global dysfunctions.
The M.E. ICC also defines specific symptom requirements: post-exertional
neuroimmune exhaustion (PENE), neurological impairments, immune, gastrointestinal, and
genitourinary impairments, and energy metabolism impairments.
The pre-runner to the ICC M.E. was the Canadian Consensus Criteria
(2003). CCC M.E.
http://www.ahmf.org/me_cfs_overview.pdf
The Canadian Consensus Criteria define M.E. as an acquired, organic,
pathophysiological multi-systemic illness that occurs in both sporadic and
epidemic forms and requires core symptoms including post-exertional malaise
(PEM) and neurocognitive dysfunction, in contrast to the polythetic approach of
the Fukuda case definition below.
The Fukuda et al. (1994) criteria was developed by the CDC in the USA
after the outbreak at Lake Tahoe.
https://www.cdc.gov/cfs/case-definition/1994.html
These criteria are used to define Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. As Post
Exertional Neuroimmune Exhaustion (PENE) is not a mandatory criterion under Fukuda you can begin to
imagine the number of misdiagnosis and confusion that abounds.
Research
has indicated that individuals with a primary psychiatric illness (e.g. primary
Major Depressive Disorder) may be misdiagnosed under the Fukuda criteria due to
many overlapping symptoms including fatigue and sleep difficulties.
In the UK however, other criteria were developed by a group of
psychiatrists - called the Oxford Criteria.
These criteria are far less rigorous and may include patients with fatigue
as their only symptom. As you can imagine there are a myriad of illnesses which
can have fatigue as a primary symptom, e.g. MS, Lupus, Fibromyalgia, cancer,
heart disease, etc, so the possibility for misdiagnosis is very high and the
research criteria used results in a toxic mix of patients with a range of
illnesses.
The Oxford criteria is not used anywhere else in the world and yet
the HSE previously adopted them straight from the UK as if they are the best way to
diagnose people with M.E.
To further explain how this criteria is viewed by international experts,
in July 2016, the Agency for Healthcare, Research and Quality in the USA issued
an addendum to its Evidence Report recommending the retirement of the Oxford
criteria for M.E./CFS because it was the least specific of all the definitions
and only included six months fatigue as a primary symptom and did not include
Post Exertional Neuroimmune Exhaustion (PENE) which is considered a hallmark of M.E.
Please see
Introduction paragraph of the following: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/ehc/products/586/2004/chronic-fatigue-report-160728.pdf
As you can glean from the above, the research criteria used for M.E. can vary
enormously from country to country and medical discipline to medical
discipline. The Oxford criteria developed by the UK psychiatrists is unfit for
use and cannot be reliably extrapolated to people with M.E. because the distinct
neurological indicators of the disease are ignored and excluded.
What is the problem in Ireland?
It is these criteria upon which the HSE diagnostic and treatment guidelines have been based.
The good news however is that in recent years there has been huge
strides made in the understanding and appropriate categorisation of M.E.
In the USA for example the Institute of Medicine (IOM) produced a
comprehensive report back in 2015 called “Beyond Myalgic
Encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome - Redefining an illness” which
concluded "It is clear from the evidence compiled by the committee that
ME/CFS is a serious, chronic, complex, and multisystem disease that frequently
and dramatically limits the activities of affected patients". The
report goes on to recommend new diagnostic criteria very similar to the CCC of 2003 mentioned above and lists Post Exertional Malaise as a mandatory
criterion for diagnosis. Howevere, it does not list Post Exertional Neuroimmune Exhaustion (PENE) as a mandatory criterion for diagnosis.
5. How is M.E. diagnosed in Ireland?
The HSE guidelines used anywhere within the HSE are a cut and paste edit of the NHS guidelines in the UK
which is based on the Oxford Criteria and problematically does not require Post Exertional Neuroimmune Exhaustion (PENE) as a mandatory diagnostic symptom.
How can a condition that has PENE as
a CARDINAL SYMPTOM not require the same symptom to be present for
diagnosis?
Given the feedback from ME patients it seems pretty clear that people get an 'ME/CFS' diagnosis here based loosely on the Oxford criteria which focuses
primarily on fatigue which has lasted for more than six months, and one of a
selection of other symptoms which are generic to many other conditions. This
‘criteria’ means that the other common and more serious symptoms of M.E. often get ignored or
disregarded, or are treated as separate conditions with no one looking at the
whole system and the whole illness. One can only imagine the number of misdiagnoses that this is creating.
Patients
with M.E. are often met with dismissal and denial of their condition due to the
lack of knowledge within the HSE.
Some patients however, particularly those who have the illness much
longer, received an M.E. diagnosis when there were
experts in the field here in Ireland, including our very own Professor Austin
Darragh, (RIP) who was one of the authors of the M.E. ICC in 2011.
Unfortunately, that expertise no longer exists and has been allowed to
disappear as experts here retired or passed away and were not replaced. M.E.,
for example, no longer features in education in medical schools.
6. What does the HSE say about M.E.?
Prior to April 2017, when members of ME Advocates Ireland (MEAI) and other M.E. patients had success getting the HSE to remove inappropriate information on M.E. from their website, if someone had searched for information on the HSE website with the words 'Myalgic Encephalomyelitis' or M.E.’ they were brought straight to the HSE information on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.
The website at the time conflated the two conditions claiming that
doctors 'preferred' to use the term ‘CFS’ as opposed to M.E.
M.E. is not taught in our medical schools and many doctors are not aware of its existence or the fact that it is a distinct illness listed under neurological conditions in the WHO classifications, completely separate from the entity CFS.
Those medical professionals who are aware of M.E. have not been educated about M.E. so don’t know how to manage M.E. There are no guidelines, no policy, no specialist healthcare pathways .
The HSE website has never been updated despite the HSE now having relevant appropriate information on M.E. The website remains blank while the HSE wait for HSE Clinical Guidelines on M.E. to be created and published. There is currently an HSE project being put together to develop Irish ME clinical guidelines under the HSE CCO, Colm Henry.
Urgent
Recommendation:
We recommend that the HSE immediately addresses the fact that the section on M.E. on their website is blank, and that they need to add relevant and appropriate guidelines about M.E. to their website as per the International Consensus Criteria (ICC-ME 2011) and with reference to the ever-growing wealth of contemporary international biomedical research which supports appropriate management pathways.
7. What is Graded Exercise Therapy (GET) and Cognitive Behavioural Therapy?
Prior to April 2017, when the HSE removed inappropriate information relating to M.E. from their website, the HSE had inappropriately recommended standard
'treatments' of psychological interventions and exercise - Cognitive Behaviour Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy (CBT
and GET) under the heading Treatment'.
These two treatments have been proven to be both ineffectual and
harmful to people with M.E.
The current default position of many doctors is to
refer those diagnosed with M.E. to psychiatry and inappropriate physiotherapy. These referrals set up a pathway that is totally inappropriate and which blocks much needed medical investigations, multi symptom management and correct treatment paths for people with Myalgic
Encephalomyelitis.
GET, as a treatment, has been proven to seriously harm and even kill
people with M.E. as patients' bodies do not have the ability to reproduce energy so pushing their bodies beyond safe limits can end up pushing patients into a
severe case of their illness, with some patients requiring 24 hr care, confined to bed, doubly
incontinent, tubetube and having multi organ problems, and deterioration that can lead to death.
Other health agencies around the world have removed GET as a
treatment on the basis that it is firstly ineffective and secondly likely to
cause harm.
Graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) must not be offered as treatments for M.E. as per NICE Guidelines Oct 2021.
CBT as a treatment is not an effective tool. While it may be useful as
an adjunct therapy (as with many other chronic illnesses) it should not be
recommended as a primary treatment.
Many people with M.E. cannot get out of
their beds or homes and to set them up with therapist appointments which they
cannot possibly attend (or cause them severe crashes and relapses) amounts
only to cruelty. If patients want to have psychological
therapy to help them cope with their illness, then that should be their choice
and something that they request for themselves, as is the case with any other
illness.
The avoidance of future recommendations of these two treatments, GET and CBT, is imperative for the safety of adults and children
with M.E.
7. More about the harms of Graded Exercise Therapy (GET)
GET means Graded Exercise Therapy, the principle of which is for the
patient to increase their exercise over time even if they feel very unwell from
doing so. The principle behind prescribing GET for those with M.E. is an
underlying belief that the ongoing symptoms are due to false illness beliefs
and deconditioning.
Graded Exercise Therapy became underpinned by the NHS after a large
trial was conducted in the UK to establish whether CBT and GET were effective
treatments for M.E. The trial was known as the PACE Trial. The authors were among a prominent group of British mental health
professionals, and their associates, who had long argued that the devastating
symptoms of M.E. were caused by false illness beliefs and severe physical
deconditioning.
They recognized that many people experienced an acute viral infection or
other illness as an initial trigger. However, they believed that a syndrome
was perpetuated by patients’ “unhelpful” and “dysfunctional” notion in that
they continued to believe they suffered from an organic disease and that
exertion would make them worse. According to these psychiatry ‘experts’,
patients ‘decisions’ to remain sedentary for prolonged periods led to muscle
atrophy and other negative systemic physiological impacts, which then caused
even more fatigue and other symptoms in a self-perpetuating cycle.
Biological studies however have shown that M.E. is characterized
by immunological and neurological dysfunctions, and many academic and
government scientists say that the search for organic causes, diagnostic tests
and drug interventions is paramount.
In contrast, the British mental health experts focused on
non-pharmacological rehabilitative therapies, aimed at improving patients’
physical capacities and altering their perceptions of their condition through
behavioural and psychological approaches. The PACE trial was designed to be a
definitive test of two such treatments they had pioneered to help patients
recover and get back to work. British government agencies, eager to stem health
and disability costs related to the illness, committed five million pounds
to support the research.
There was a great fanfare among the psych cabal and their associates when the results of the trial were published and showed that 22% of people in the two rehabilitative treatment arms had
achieved 'recovery'.
However, since then the trial has been completely debunked by many
scientists around the world. It was revealed that the Principal Investigators of
the trial had altered the primary outcomes in their original 'recovery'
protocols halfway through the trial so much so that 13% of the trial
participants could have simultaneously qualified as being disabled enough to
enter the trial and recovered after the trial.
Suffice to say that applying the original recovery outcomes of the
trial had a null effect. Despite that, however, the authors (who had
considerable influence and power in media, government, insurance companies and
the UK establishment) were able to control the media message and perpetuate the
myth that the illness was fundamentally perpetuated by unhelpful illness
beliefs.
There is much written about this trial and the calls for its retraction. We are providing two links. The first is a link to a recently published peer reviewed article which
concludes:
“The claim that patients can
recover as a result of CBT and GET is not justified by the data, and is highly
misleading to clinicians and patients considering these treatments.”
The second link below is to an article published on April 4th, 2017 which explains, in an easy to understand way, the flaws of the PACE Trial
and why it has been so damaging for people with M.E. The article concludes:
“Studies
like the PACE Trial can have a strong impact on patient care, and flawed
studies can result in harm to patients. Conventional peer review is obviously
not enough; the effective peer review in this case came after publication.
Numerous flaws were found that should have been addressed before publication.
Critics called for the study to be retracted; so far it hasn’t been. This
unfortunate episode can serve as a wake-up call and it points out the value of
freely sharing raw data with other researchers. Good scientists want to know if
they are wrong. They want to have their work scrutinized and should be willing
to share their data without the requesters having to resort to a court order”.
8. Current biological research
The myth that M.E. is a self-perpetuating condition continues to this
day in some quarters thanks to the control that a cabal of UK psychiatrists
have of the Science Media Centre in the U.K. The SMC controls virtually all the media message relating to M.E.
However, thanks to a growing number of exceptional scientists, M.E.
medical experts and patient advocates who have researched and delved into the
biological dysfunctions caused by M.E., we are closer than ever to finding out
the pathology of M.E.
It is to those researchers that patients owe a debt
of gratitude. Patients all around the world raise funds for biological research.
Peer reviewed biological research and articles about M.E.
More about research and studies included here
And a list of scientific articles about M.E. and Long Covid from 2024 dating back to the 1950s here
As you can see from the above linked information regarding research there are copious amounts of biological research
already carried out, some of which demonstrates that people with M.E. are harmed by
exercise and therefore to provide this as a treatment is to compound that harm
and possibly drive them into a situation of total and long-term severe
disability.
Scientific evidence from by Paul L et al demonstrates delayed
recovery from fatiguing exercise. It should
be noted that this paper was published almost 20 years ago.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10209352
9. How did the HSE get it so wrong and continue to get it so wrong?
The problem with the HSE is that they simply just copied and pasted the
UK NHS guidelines for M.E. without any reference to the ever-growing
wealth of contemporary international research which supports a very different
management pathway than that of the majority of UK services.
The HSE completely ignores the many thousand peer
reviewed scientific papers that show the biological issues involved in M.E.
Indeed, the HSE appears to ignore the fact that it is a neurological
disorder listed under the WHO G93.3.
A more troubling fact is that the HSE have not adopted a formal definition of M.E. which is sufficiently rigid to meet research standards.
The HSE have failed to ensure that its staff in acute and community
settings are sufficiently educated and aware of the illness, and that patients can present
from mild to severely disabled. Because of this failure, patients often
experience ignorance of the condition or dismissal of the seriousness of their
disability – indeed many patients are pressurised into agreeing to
psychological interventions or to a physiotherapy regime undertaken by those
not familiar with the disastrous consequences of PENE with a serious worsening
of all symptoms.
10. What do Irish doctors know about ME?
Many Irish doctors know very little about M.E. save what they may have read on
the HSE website prior to April 2017.
The illness is not taught in medical schools here. It has
virtually been disappeared or conflated with CFS.
There are no consultants
specialising in the illness and therefore there is no clear medical care plan
pathway for patients.
There are no clinical leads in healthcare services.
Many patients regularly report bad experiences where hospital staff have
said they've either never heard of the illness or else they think that it means
you have a ‘mental health’ problem. For an illness that has been categorised by
the WHO as neurological this is beyond disgraceful.
It is very difficult to find a GP who understands M.E. or is
willing to look up the current research. While ME-aware GPs do exist here and there,
they are managing M.E. without any support or encouragement from their parent bodies
or the HSE.
This inevitably leads to the neglect of people who are extremely ill and debilitated.
Whether the neglect is wilful, or accidental is irrelevant in this situation.
People are left to cope on their own seeking advice, testing and treatment
abroad where they can afford it or left to rot in darkened bedrooms when they
can't. Children also get M.E. and in the UK figures show it is the biggest
contributor to school absences.
11. Recommendations
1. Ensure that the harmful recommendations
of CBT and GET are removed as treatment options from all HSE guidelines
2.
Adopt an accepted internationally
recognised set of diagnostic criteria (this group recommends the ME ICC) which
is sufficiently rigorous to identify research cohorts
3.
Develop an M.E. policy to include:
·
Diagnostic Protocols
·
Treatment Options
·
Management Pathways
·
Training Programmes for existing and
new HSE personnel involved in all potential aspects of patient care e.g. acute personnel, community personnel, primary care personnel, hospital personnel,
education personnel, social workers, etc
4.
The advertisement and appointment of
a consultant with extensive experience of innovative practice in M.E., who will
guide and inform the development of the HSE’s M.E. practice in Ireland in line
with the adopted International diagnostic criteria. Such practice to include
informing all relevant groups of people responsible for ensuring that a person
with M.E. is supported and managed in the most constructive and positive way
possible
5.
HSE website information to be in line
with the policy and adopted diagnostic criteria
6. We call for the withdrawal of psychiatry from front line involvement in M.E. and an end to default psych referrals by GPs and doctors/healthcare providers in hospitals and other care settings.
Thank you so much for this overview, it is an extremely well written and informative summary. The situation in Ireland seems dire. Just a couple of observations, the daily reality of people with Severe ME is much worse than not having the “basic energy” to engage in daily tasks, while that of people with Very Severe ME is so horrendous, there just aren’t the words to describe how awful it is, the pain, the paralysis, the cognitive issues, the terrible hypersensitivities, the profound system dysfunction. Another issue is that PENE , Post Exertional Neuro-immune Exhaustion might be a more accurate, less loaded term than PEM. I don’t think you specifically call for the separation of ME from CFS, in your recommendations, neither do you call specifically for the withdrawal of psychiatry from front line involvement. That might be worth adding. What definitely needs adding, in my opinion, is the prefix “biomedical” to Recommendation 3, otherwise the door is still potentially left open to wrong psychosocial input. Thank you, once again, for producing this important document!
ReplyDeleteThanks Greg, for your very valid comments. We will take your suggestions on board, and make changes to the document.
ReplyDeleteThe MEAI team