Oxford criteria

I still have not seen any indication as to why Gelder might have provided financial assistance, of any sort to the Oxford conference. I'm sure that I have seen comments from Sharpe that Gelder was supportive but had no particular interest in CFS. It is puzzling.

 

This?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2984352/

 

So on the basis of this study just over half those diagnosed with CFS under the Oxford criteria are likely to have a psychiatric disorder.

For the BPS crew this presumably is not seen as a problem, but for the rest of the world this means it is impossible to conclude anything about ME/CFS from a study using the Oxford criteria, even before any data has been collected. How would people react to a study of MS where in the region of half the MS participants also had cancer?

Do the BPSers ever try to explain this situation? Would they characterise these psychiatric conditions as distinct conditions co-occurring with the ME/CFS or are they somehow connected with the ME/CFS? Do they even see CFS as a discrete condition, or do they just see it as 'chronic fatigue' that is a symptom of various psychiatric conditions?

What seems to be a persistent feature of the BPSers is a profound lack of intellectual rigour, and a willing acceptance of methodological and theoretical ambiguity/confusion.

 

Mainly, it would seem, because of a profound lack of understanding of intellectual rigour

 

Very good points @Peter Trewhitt and @Barry.

It seems they aim for methodological and theoretical ambiguity/confusion. That appears to be what they want. I don't think I'm wrong in saying,it seems the boundaries between "cfs" and mental health disorders have always been deliberately blurred by this group. That way "cfs" may always
remain in their bailiwick. Bigger empire and all that.

ETA: The Oxford criteria itself appears to prove this obfuscation.

ETA#2: I don't know if they lack intellectual rigour, or misunderstand it. My thought would be they don't lack it, and do understand it.

 

Historical footage of this explanation:

 

Looks like Andy's post covers it, but I thought I'd post the following anyway. Short 1995 paper, first-named author is Russell Lane (co-author of Oxford). Ppts met Oxford Criteria. 43 of 96 participants were screened, 18 of which (42%) met criteria for psychiatric caseness.

Exercise responses and psychiatric disorder in chronic fatigue syndrome.
R. J. Lane, A. P. Burgess, J. Flint, M. Riccio, and L. C. Archard
BMJ. 1995 Aug 26; 311(7004): 544–545

Obviously Oxford is to some extent explicit as to which mental health diagnoses are cause for exclusion and which may not necessarily be.

 

I don't know if the figures of patients with a mental health diagnosis such as depression or anxiety are higher, using the Oxford criteria than with other criteria. At the time the Holmes criteria were used I think 50-75% of CFS patients had such a comorbid diagnosis.

 

My feeling is that that it is all they've got, quite literally. I think psychiatry is all about grey areas, intangibles. It's as if psychiatry has evolved its own research practices, independently of mainstream science, but they call it science anyway ... but in many ways more akin to religion, a closed belief system.

 

Didn't know about this angle in the creation of the Oxford criteria:

p26
https://www.imet.ie/imet_documents/BYRON_HYDE_little_red_book.pdf

 

That is interesting. I have seen it before, but did not then have the knowledge which I now have.

My view is that the British psychiatrists may merely have been useful idiots. It seems to have been Eisenberg who introduced the idea of "spurious disease concepts" and somatisation to Oxford in 1987, which ties in suspiciously with the goings on at the CDC. We had to put up with "hysteria" but that was clearly outmoded.

Eisenberg co authored with Leighton Cluff and with Arthur Kleinmann on the travails of the US medical system. I still do not understand how we came to have a Harvard "cultural anthropologist" (Kleinmann) chairing the CIBA conference which set the tone for the future of ME (or CFS as they would have preferred to call it).

 

posted elsewhere but definitely relevent here and worth a read.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK379582/

 

someone has asked me for the source of this; so thought I should post it here

It was posted on PR back in the day........

"Wessely supervised the appointees to the committee


https://www.dropbox.com/s/92m09l9tq55pihh/Behind the Scenes - Research Collaborative.pdf

Professor Holgate then emailed Professor Simon Wessely with importance marked as ‘High’ and copied only to Dr Esther Crawley of Bristol University and Joe McNamara of the MRC.

It read

•“Dear Simon, If you feel there is anything you can do to help in identifying researchers or in other ways, I would be very grateful. Thank you so much. Kind regards, Stephen.” (quote 2)

•Simon Wessely replied “First of all, it looks very good...... can’t see many ommissions (sic). I would probably sprinkle one or two scientists/researchers not particularly connected with CFS into the mix myself. Experimental psychologist perhaps, joe, do you know one?....” Simon Wessely’s suggested researchers were redacted. (quote 3)

•Stephen Holgate replied “Wow! This is terrific, Simon – thanks so much. I will add your suggested names. Kindest regards, Stephen” (quote 4)
"

post is John Mac
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/thr...ual-science-conference-2016.47067/post-768731

 

The Oxford criteria is tantamount to research fraud. How would cancer or AIDS patients feel if research for their illness included anyone who felt a bit tired?

ME should be defined as patients who experience an adverse reaction to exercise or exertion.

 

ME was defined as an adverse reaction to exercise and exertion, it was CFS that made it a disease of fatigue. Fatigue in ME was always like fatigue in MS, a difficult symptom but not the defining one.

The BPS people included everyone who experienced fatigue and lumped them together. They concentrated on things which made diseases the same instead of distinguishing differences which made it much harder to find any consistent biological findings. It is almost as if they wanted to make it difficult to disprove it is a psychological condition.

A bit late to the discussion, but I read that Wessely was at the conference in the US which defined CFS and Sharpe was involved too. Other psychologists may have come in to get some of the research money but they were part of the initial fraud. It is beyond understanding that the CDC could be brought in to understand an outbreak of disease then define it as "needing 6 months of fatigue"