I specifically excluded the reference to 'depression' in Beresford's website as I wanted to wait and see how any media responses would deal with 'anxiety' and depression separately. Bearing in mind the recent thread on the MS research on the forum., and the recent research into different forms of fatigue affecting certain types of Cancer patients. Can't look for forum links at the moment.
Both these patients groups are treated in the Long term fatigue clinics 'existing services'.
My bold emphasis in the comment above is not only to protect the field of treatment in ME/CFS, because it should be remembered that:
- not only would he, as part of NHSE, been a recipient of the PFD Report from Maeve, (NHSE was not a recipient of the PFD eport for Sarah Lewis which has to be responded to the Cororner by 2 September 2025), but the DHSC was , but is also
- Emeritus Senior Investigator at the NIHR and is highly likely to be involved in preparing the National Service Framework for ME/CFS which will likely also now include Post Covid 19 Syndrome (Long Covid) and producing educational materials for the 'existing services'.
Yes, the impact of his various positions should be made very clear, particularly in view of Prof Chris Ponting's comments about 15 years late in
research, anxiety and depression etc. and those of Prof Anthony Komaroff in the article.
I'm not aware of any but there has long been research into Anxiety, Depression and Personality type D as predictors of disease severity?
Is personality type D assessment, being used as a mental health predictor of disease severity being excluded from the consent process on the grounds of ‘therapuetic exception’?
Lack of informed consent is the epitome of medical gaslighting unique to ME/CFS for decades, because it confirms beyond reasonable doubt that ME/CFS was, still is, and will continue to be viewed as PRIMARILY a mental health condition in the BPS, re-framed as mind-body, (on the surface masking the psychiatric emphasis on psychology confirming why it remains in the 2025 Kumar and Clarke medical textbook under mental health services and liaison psychiatry).
It contributes significantly to the harm caused by ‘existing treatment’ paradigm – which ignores the 2021 NICE Guideline ng206 - raised repeatedly over decades in patient safety concerns, and deaths.
It is this existing treatment paradigm which is to be investigated under the NIHR HERITAGE progamme which will include the creation of a National Service Framework and educational materials.
The 2021 NICE Guideline ng206 limits CBT to help with anxiety and depression, if requested by the Patient. THIS is the core of the issue with existing treatment where all existing services include the following as mandatory in it's 'pragmatic rehabilitation' of ALL levels of severerity of ME/CFS., applied at progressing degrees of intensity as severity increases, i.e. sectioning. It is the entire basis on which treatment for ME/CFS has always been framed.
Cardiovascular disease also includes long term fatigue, where suggestions to Personality Type D as a predictor of adverse outcomes has long been drawn.
For example during the same 15 year period Chris Ponting talks about, while CBT ME/CFS specific, Activity Management and GET comprised the entire treatment regime, alongside standard medical care for ME/CFS; this was going on in connection with cardiovascular research:
Published in Psychology Today on 7 August 2025 -
Personality, Mental Health, and the Heart: It's a Puzzle | Psychology Today
Published in August 2011 -
Personality type D and vulnerability to adverse outcomes in heart disease August 2011:
https://www.ccjm.org/content/ccjom/78/8_suppl_1/S13.full.pd Authors JOHAN DENOLLET, PhD CoRPS–Center of Research on Psychology in Somatic diseases, Tilburg University, Tilburg, The Netherlands; Department of Cardiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium VIVIANE M. CONRAADS, MD, PhD Department of Cardiology, Antwerp University Hospital, Antwerp, Belgium
Therefore, 'anxiety impedes recovery' can only mean that without CBT as a mandatory part of treatment - e.g. instruction to ignore NICE Guideline ng206 - severity increases, and worse, due to patient's personality type alone, and not because of lack of biomedical and genetic research.
Given that there has been a further PFD Report following the death of Sarah Lewis, which would fit the risks connected with a personality type D assessment both on severity and cause of death.
They are not accountable and have nothing to apologise for, therefore, carry on regardless of DecodeME initial results.
They (BPS proponents) now re-framed as 'mind-body' with (less obvious emphasis on the psychological/psychiatric) borrow from the mind-body-spirit movement which arrived in the west in complementary therapy in the 1970s. Little response from them apart from the above to the pre-print initial results of DecodeME as noted below.
My feeling is that the Final Delivery Plan and the NIHR HERITAGE programme as mentioned above, and the fact that the eLearning produced under the Plan not being mandatory means they're not that bothered as 'there is a plan'.
Why on earth would Wessely, a 'professor of psychology' and psychiatrist (who vigorously defended the results of the PACE trial into an illness which has significant suicide numbers) state publicly in the Newsweek article:
Eleanor highlights a reason why:
Wessely clearly made that statement without the people suffering with ME/CFS in the forefront of his mind at the time. Nothing is more destructive to hope than being effectively told 'don't hold your breath waiting'.
As Sean stated 'look at what he actually does, very consistently':
I don't think we can afford to ignore the potential impact and meaning behind his public comments because of the NIHR HERITAGE programme.
As Amw66 points out, there is now a new need for research into cost effectiveness of 'existing services' and is, at least partly, why this is included as part of the NIHR HERITAGE programme.
www.oxfordmail.co.uk
