News from Doctors with ME

One thing that bothers me is that they refer to
"• Correct diagnosis – nutritional failure secondary to ME / Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS) / dysautonomia affecting the GI tract."
I'm hoping that post GWAS there'll be some leads re the underlying cause of ME/CFS but at this point in time we cannot e.g. state "Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (MCAS)"
Stuff like MCAS seems to be interpreted (by many Doctors) as a euphemism --- for "functional disorder" or whatever.
Otherwise I though it was useful.

 

Following the trade union analogy (which I agree with) I think there's reason to believe that the Royal College's stance was basically reflecting vested interests. A small group of influential vested members are opposed --- others (like GPs) are concerned that they'll no longer have an easy out (in the 10 minutes or whatever a GP provides/gets paid for) --- so the Royal College's stance reflects those vested interests.
I do wonder if other members of the Royal College's don't actually fall into one of those self interested groups --- since they aren't interested, of course, they've no need to be informed/proactive---

Maybe getting that group, who don't have a vested interest, involved would be a way to get a more objective stance from the Royal College's. Others have pointed out that Covid may be a way in --- Doctors are/have been in the front line and those who became ill/can no longer work are basically left to fend for themselves. So Doctors 4 ME might have a target audience/sympathetic audience within the Royal College's.

Rambling thoughts!

 

Presumably the same vested interests still exist tho - with a proven ability to manipulate the policies regarding pwME of the royal colleges?

Unless these malign actors have been disproportionately impacted by LC, then I don't see how LC changes much.

 

Yea I think inertia, i.e. from the rational/non-vested interests, may be a barrier - but Doctors 4 ME should have a go --- particularly on behalf of those Doctors who are no longer able to work ---.

 

I've gone round the same circle of pros (or being really 'bright side') and cons (remembering what the guideline took and guarding against filibustering/running down the clock) too.

I think one thing we can say is that this as a document has brought up the right questions and moved us onto the how part. *EDIT which might include the point about evidence/analysis that needs to be behind the examples for buy-in

Could this memory [of the guideline/round table stuff] be insightful and the solution be in part a Dame Carol Black equivalent, even just in a 'imagine you will be giving your answers to/in front of..' sense?

 

has anyone any recent news about DWME? nothing on twitter since Oct 2022.