Persistent fatigue induced by interferon-alpha: A novel, inflammation-based, proxy model of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2018, Pariante et al

yeah

 

My feeling is that approaches like these are far too simple to understand what's going on in ME. They seem to build on the belief ME is simple. I think biochemical approaches on a deeper level are needed.

 

I've had concerns about this line of research (on the other forum) since the MRC funding was announced for this project. Academic psychiatrists have been asserting for 20+ years that interferon-alpha treatment for hep C is a biological model of depression. There are 1000s of publications on this topic. I've had reservations about this as the symptom picture doesn't quite fit. What this Pariante study seems to show is that interferon-alpha is actually a model of some sort of persistent fatigue state, not depression. Quelle surprise. Although this study made no attempt to find out whether this persistent fatigue condition shares hallmark features of ME/CFS such as PEM and orthostatic issues, they reported it in the media as a study of ME/CFS. The authors should clarify their views.

The fact that such an unremarkable study is getting such media attention makes me suspect that the BPS lobby is pivoting from their previous extreme position which they had staked out in the 1990s (there is nothing wrong with these patients, they just need exercise) to something that's less untenable but can still be interpreted within the BPS framework. It's easy to imagine them interpreting this as ME/CFS being triggered by an immune event in people who are predisposed and then once the cytokines are gone the unhelpful beliefs and behaviours perpetuate the condition. In other words, just a restatement of their original position in immunobabble language.

 

precisely @Sid,

like i said, no wonder they love it, & him

 

@Sid

I think you nailed it.

 

Cort Johnson seems to quite like the study

https://www.prohealth.com/library/s...udy-highlights-energy-issues-gut-subset-89153

 

I complained to the BBC about this report on 17th Dec 2018.
Received first reply 25th December giving me complaint reference number.
Subsequent email from BBC 13th Jan:
"
We are contacting you to apologise that we’ve not been able to reply to your complaint within the time period we aim for. We manage this for most complaints but regret it’s not always possible to achieve.

If you wish to refer this delay and the substance of your complaint to the BBC’s regulator Ofcom, you can do so online at https://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv-radio-and-on-demand/how-to-report-a-complaint/bbc-tv-channel-radio-station-bbciplayer or by post to: Ofcom, Riverside House, 2a Southwark Bridge Road, London SE1 9HA. Please include for Ofcom your latest correspondence from and to the BBC and any BBC case reference numbers which you have been given".

Not had any further email.

(nb the time they aim for is 10 days).
What should I do now? Is it worth pursuing?

 

Yes. I would first write to or phone BBC complaints department to ask what has happened to your complaint. (If you phone make sure you get a reference for the call.)

I would delay taking it to Ofcom until you have received a decision from the BBC.

I had a similar delay when I complained to the BBC about an ME issue. In the end they rejected my complaint and I referred it to Ofcom who also rejected it after another long delay.

However, I think your complaint is strong and you should pursued it to the end. If the BBC were to publish a correction it would be a significant victory.

 

And even if they don't publish a correction, another strong complaint re their ME coverage to deal with will be another drop in the bucket to - eventually - make them take notice.
But only pursue the matter if you have the energy to do so @Sly Saint.

 

Finally got a response to this;

this is the change they have made:

bit late and too subtle if you ask me.........

 

I followed this up and have finally had a reply

missing the point again but hey ho.

 

Thanks for following up on this @Sly Saint

 

I actually didn't say that they should have mentioned the PACE trial (in this article), I was referring/pointing to a previous article they did about the PACE trial and how that was also biased, and gave Michael Sharpe the last word.

I haven't got the energy to keep going with this but this

"We believe this presents the issue in context, but equally it was important to mention to views of those who defend the treatment, including the researcher quoted in the piece."

really bugs me.

So does Carmine Pariante 'defend the treatment' ie CBT/GET ?

As far as I can see, reading the article again, it does not say who these 'others' who defend the treatment are, although we can guess with a degree of certainty.

So although they say this is not what the article was about........the usual suspects still in effect get the last word, allbeit anonymously.

This was my point.

 

Wikipedia has explicit rules against weasel words in articles. I find it almost equally amusing and infuriating that the BBC is happy for their editorial standards to be weaker than those of Wikipedia.

 

Interferon-alpha-induced depression: Comparisons between early- and late-onset subgroups and with patients with major depressive disorder
Carmine Pariante 2019

full paper here
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0889159119300352?dgcid=coauthor

 

From a glance at the post Chandler fatigue scale continues to roll out more ambiguity?

CSS, somatisation, sickness behaviour. Is there a way to get FND in there too?

 

Weird admission about the CFQ. It is neither a valid nor a standard tool for anything but this is an implicit admission that it is built for depressive symptoms. Whatever it's not really a valid tool for anything so I don't see the point of this study. Maybe just trying to give CFQ some credibility but instead all it does is make this study entirely useless.

And the circlejerk jerks on.

Although I would definitely like to see serious studies of the physiological nature of depression. I don't buy that it has anything to do with mood, thoughts or beliefs. Far too many perfectly happy people developed depression without facing any hardship so that doesn't make any sense. In a perverse way this is the right approach, though at least use serious tools for that, it will likely show that depression is mostly related to the immune system.

Maybe if competent people tried that instead. Not impressed by Pariante and his choices.

 

Noticed Japanese drug company Astellas gets a mention in your post.

I picked up elsewhere that they are funding Dr. Systrom to test the drug Bocidelparis.