What high-quality resources should S4ME produce for PwME, clinicians, researchers etc.?

Hutan said:
I think it is very important that the topic is introduced in a Members Only thread and there is say two weeks allowed for people to comment e.g. to link material covering the topic that they think is good, as well as comments about problems to avoid. Perhaps at the end of the two weeks, people could nominate themselves to have access to a private subforum where the first draft is produced?
Click to expand...
That seems to be the consensus (as I said in my post to @Ash above, I didn't represent that consensus accurately in my summary!). I think we need a lead writer at this stage, though, so that they can start and run that thread - would you agree? And yes, I think self-nomination after the two weeks would be a good way to get a team.
 
Hutan said:
Thanks Peter. I think that's a very good reminder of the range of practical information we have here. Something to keep in mind as we plan a website down the track - we need to highlight that that information is there.


I think it is very important that the topic is introduced in a Members Only thread and there is say two weeks allowed for people to comment e.g. to link material covering the topic that they think is good, as well as comments about problems to avoid. Perhaps at the end of the two weeks, people could nominate themselves to have access to a private subforum where the first draft is produced?
Click to expand...
Would a banner pointing people to the project be feasible?
I don’t know anyone who’s completely happy with existing options either because these don’t cover all requirements (too long and good or short but vague etc) so it seems like something people would like to hear about.
 
Last edited:
It's great to see so much enthusiasm for this idea, and I don't want to discourage anyone, but before anyone races ahead with organisation and deciding who does what, I think if this is to be an official forum project producing materials that are published by the forum, the committee will need to have a say in how this is done. Please can we slow down a bit for a few days to give the committee time to catch up.
 
Last edited:
JemPD said:
I honestly believe the term 'sensitivities' has set us back in the attempt to get others to understand. Certainly in the uk it conjours a picture of a person who is frankly a bit wet, needs to toughen up, & those 'sensitivities' is something that staff really dont need to bother with - oh well she's sensitive to light, diddums, i'm a nurse thats not my problem.

'Sound sensitivity' is certainly always in my experience mistaken for something that makes me anxious or they think that i simply dont like it. I never ever tell anyone i am 'sensitive' to anything unless i mean it in an emotional 'sensitive soul' way.... for example that i am sensitive to violence in tv/audiobooks so must avoid. People get that, they understand that it upsets me, which it does.

But my sensory difficulties mean that even sound that l LIKE and ENJOYis a problem - with either enough of it or if i already struggling, it causes me pain & deterioration to the point that I cannot physically or cognitively function. So the term 'sensitivity' does not at all accurately convey the fact. And personally I think it should be dropped asap if we want anyone to understand us, but thats just IMHO.

'Tolerance' isnt much better because it conjours a picture of someone who refuses to tolerate something they dont like. A domineering entitled type - For example "i do not tolerate abuse of any kind".
But its better than sensitivity given the current misconception of us as being a bit pathetic.

I dont know what the answer is.
Click to expand...
noise/sound exertion? along with talking exertion, cognitive exertion, orthostatic exertion and all the rest.

I know what you mean - I think there is the bit where you might be able to like it because you want to listen to eg a tune or tv or chat but it's still draining the eggtimer faster. And then add in multiple things at once. And noise obviously does this too. And hten there is when you need to be resting and it's still exertion but it hurts - and yet people don't seem to get that 4hrs of building banging takes so long for your body to calm down into rest from not due to 'it being in stress response' but because it needs to rest, but is so overtired (I think noise is as bad as anything else because it can be continuous without break) you need to rest to get good rest and it's more like a migraine combined with vertigo but also like the body has been exerted and needs to wind itself down except ours takes x times longer than most (again not because of the 'mode' and the 'HPA' thing certainly not in the simplistic way you see the BACME stuff)

Anyway, it's a hard one but getting those terms right would be such a winner.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
As indicated before I don't think there is a need to be so specific. I see no reason why a text should not inform professionals as much as patients. For the patient the objective is to say 'well someone just said you have ME/CFS, and this is what that actually means' and for the professional it is to say 'well, you thought you knew all about this or thought it was a load of hooey, and this is what it actually means'. The level of ignorance and the need for plain English are pretty much the same I think.
Click to expand...
A main difference as well could be that a patient who might think they might have it would perhaps be willing to put more effort in, particularly as it is for themself - and want detail/examples, where a busy professional just needs a direct 'what do you need from me' list (and you might be able to slide in the odd line of context/gist for penny-drop).

I like the acknowledgement that some of these might need to be really short, and when I think of the physiosforme document for 'non-ME/CFS physios who will be doing physio for something else such as an injury with pwme' ie the ones that are important really because there isn't a lot physios can do for ME/CFS and the ones who call themselves specialists generally aren't offering those correct things (like adjustments and helping with small things like pillow arrangement or whatnot but doing grading therapy).... well it's focus needed to be short. Certainly for the first version to make sure the penny-drop got across. In the context.

I think the important thing is that whilst the language and choices of what is and isn't included in detail in each and how prioritised different things are, well that these all are coherent with each other and the same underlying penny-drop paradigm comes through to the extent someone reading a few would put them together and get what ME/CFS is (and realise it isn't the old CFS 'fatigue' concept) - it's that jigsaw.

And the more we can nail some phrases that have been communication wicked problems with a few good terms or succint does what it says on the tin descriptors the better we can compete with what the bps does by literally often saying the same phrases over and over a la the rule of 7 times in advertising.
 
Last edited:
Sasha said:
Thanks for the great discussion so far, everybody! We've only been discussing this since yesterday morning but we've had lots of great contributions from more than twenty people and have made a lot of progress. Here's where I think we are:

  • We have a priority order from @Jonathan Edwards that most seem happy with.
  • We agree that at this stage, we're focusing on science-based information, not other supportive information such as benefits advice or useful aids for daily living.
  • Several are interested in how to handle going into hospital, but there's disagreement over whether that should be with a 'passport' or a communication strategy. This might be something we could pick up later once we've got the top three priority items off the ground.
  • We've agreed that the language should be simple and straightforward so that patients, clinicians and researchers can understand our documents equally and so that we don't have to write different documents for different audiences.
  • We like the idea of eventually translating our output into different languages.
  • We seem generally happy with the idea of a lead writer for each document who produces a draft and works on it with a small team in a private subforum before presenting it to the main forum for further comment before publication.
  • An additional possibility would be for the lead writer to introduce the topic on a members-only thread to invite ideas and answer questions, allowing one or two weeks before starting their draft.
  • Depending on who the lead writers are, one or two documents could be on the go in parallel.
  • We think it would be a good idea to start with just one document, to try out our method.
I hope I've done the discussion justice!

And as a reminder, here are @Jonathan Edwards' top seven proposed priorities (there are seven more):

1. What is ME/CFS? (Symptoms, diagnosis)
2. What is meant by PEM and why it is significant, its relation to fatigue and fatiguability
3. Prognosis, including variation over time and likely difference in young people
4. Treatments (the fact that there are none, apart from for individual symptoms such as insomnia and headache)
5. What PwME can do for themselves (pacing?)
6. The realities of severe and very severe ME/CFS and the need for evidence on how best to handle them
7. Environmental and food sensitivities, their management and impact on hospital care

I think we're already in a good place to start. Shall we begin by finding a lead writer (who will also essentially be the project leader) for Item #1, 'What is ME/CFS?'

Speak up if you want to do it!

If there are multiple candidates, we will need to think of a way to decide among them. All part of the learning process!

@Jonathan Edwards, I hope you'll consider being part of this...

[Edited to add] Prospective lead-writers! Would you like to give us a sense of your background that would make you a good fit for the role?
Click to expand...

I think we should be writing different documents for different audiences. And bearing in mind context. Which is likely to mean very different lengths. That's what good content does. I do think we need some conceptual framework agreed in order that across all of whatever is produced it is all coherent. And ideally reiterating similar points and underlying ideas (in different ways with different bits emphasised) in order that should someone read a few they'll hopefully have reinforced (rather than contradicted) that same penny-drop of what the condition is.
 
Sasha said:
Thanks for the great discussion so far, everybody! We've only been discussing this since yesterday morning but we've had lots of great contributions from more than twenty people and have made a lot of progress. Here's where I think we are:

  • We have a priority order from @Jonathan Edwards that most seem happy with.
  • We agree that at this stage, we're focusing on science-based information, not other supportive information such as benefits advice or useful aids for daily living.
  • Several are interested in how to handle going into hospital, but there's disagreement over whether that should be with a 'passport' or a communication strategy. This might be something we could pick up later once we've got the top three priority items off the ground.
  • We've agreed that the language should be simple and straightforward so that patients, clinicians and researchers can understand our documents equally and so that we don't have to write different documents for different audiences.
  • We like the idea of eventually translating our output into different languages.
  • We seem generally happy with the idea of a lead writer for each document who produces a draft and works on it with a small team in a private subforum before presenting it to the main forum for further comment before publication.
  • An additional possibility would be for the lead writer to introduce the topic on a members-only thread to invite ideas and answer questions, allowing one or two weeks before starting their draft.
  • Depending on who the lead writers are, one or two documents could be on the go in parallel.
  • We think it would be a good idea to start with just one document, to try out our method.
I hope I've done the discussion justice!

And as a reminder, here are @Jonathan Edwards' top seven proposed priorities (there are seven more):

1. What is ME/CFS? (Symptoms, diagnosis)
2. What is meant by PEM and why it is significant, its relation to fatigue and fatiguability
3. Prognosis, including variation over time and likely difference in young people
4. Treatments (the fact that there are none, apart from for individual symptoms such as insomnia and headache)
5. What PwME can do for themselves (pacing?)
6. The realities of severe and very severe ME/CFS and the need for evidence on how best to handle them
7. Environmental and food sensitivities, their management and impact on hospital care

I think we're already in a good place to start. Shall we begin by finding a lead writer (who will also essentially be the project leader) for Item #1, 'What is ME/CFS?'

Speak up if you want to do it!

If there are multiple candidates, we will need to think of a way to decide among them. All part of the learning process!

@Jonathan Edwards, I hope you'll consider being part of this...

[Edited to add] Prospective lead-writers! Would you like to give us a sense of your background that would make you a good fit for the role?
Click to expand...
I think we absolutely should be focusing on taking our time to discuss first and thereby get the approach right of what to leave in and out (vs audience attention span) and to smarten up words and terms for some of the tricky concepts we'll come across to communicate through brainstorming.

I think this absolutely needs to focus on taking time to do a good job and make sure the usp (unique selling point) of s4me are actually able to be employed (including those who are more severe being able to input across all documents, as well as those who might be carers, have busy jobs - we want people who match the context best to have a chance to input eg if it was on 'going to a physio with a bad foot' its useful to have those who've been there done that contextualising that for everyone at the start) and time is also important for that, over rushing to output something that doesn't do that.

I do understand the issue there is that someone might be able to put up their hand seeing the next x weeks ahead to 'manage' something, but longer time periods many of us can't see/commit. But those contributions and checks are valuable and even 2 weeks is a rush if it's not a good week, I know with things like the concept document etc. I get it will be relay on having diverse contributions and checks on each of them which will be different people, but I'd be interested to ask this question / keep a check to make sure it's consistently accessible from a diverse group (which might vary at different times)

So yes, it needs at least two weeks at the start. And on that basis whilst you may have more than one going on then this needs to extend in line with how many are in parallel to ensure participation isn't compromised in all these stages. But I agree with the pilot of one to see what we can learn from working it through to see what methods work well and people's experiences.
 
Last edited:
Just adding my two cents into the alternate word for "sound and light sensitivities" - that being Cognitive Overload.

It was a few years a go (still is?) used in our clinical pathway for doctors to read on ME/CFS

To me, it sums up my cognitive problems and problems with working memory- put simply - there is only so many inputs you can have at one time. It doesn't just apply to ME, it can be any person with a medical problem. If I am medically unwell enough to need a hospital admission, having a noisy and brightly lit room makes it hard to concentrate and recall information for the staff, interact with staff and other patients and most particularly - difficult to rest and sleep.

Wrt hospital "passports" - I do agree with Jonathan but also to clarify, some hospitals, their wards are made up of single rooms for each patient (like my local hospital) but other older hospitals may not have that set-up. There is often good reasons why we cannot have a private room - a patient may be dying and having final visits from their family or the patient may need to be in a single room close to the nursing station so can be attended to very quickly. Or it may be for a patient who is very unwell and for a variety or reasons is distressing other patients and needs to be nursed away from other patients. Demanding one by presenting such a document may not go down well as you have not understood the demands for a single room.

I think there is some onus on ourselves to bring things that support our rest/sleep, if possible - or tell our assigned nurse to contact our support person to bring them to the hospital as soon as possible. (special pillows, eye masks, earplugs etc) That would not be an unreasonable request. It is also useful to have a list of medical diagnoses (and treatment you have had in the past) and medications you are currently taking - to take the load off one's memory.
 
Last edited:
Sasha said:
Thanks for the great discussion so far, everybody! We've only been discussing this since yesterday morning but we've had lots of great contributions from more than twenty people and have made a lot of progress. Here's where I think we are:

  • We have a priority order from @Jonathan Edwards that most seem happy with.
  • We agree that at this stage, we're focusing on science-based information, not other supportive information such as benefits advice or useful aids for daily living.
  • Several are interested in how to handle going into hospital, but there's disagreement over whether that should be with a 'passport' or a communication strategy. This might be something we could pick up later once we've got the top three priority items off the ground.
  • We've agreed that the language should be simple and straightforward so that patients, clinicians and researchers can understand our documents equally and so that we don't have to write different documents for different audiences.
  • We like the idea of eventually translating our output into different languages.
  • We seem generally happy with the idea of a lead writer for each document who produces a draft and works on it with a small team in a private subforum before presenting it to the main forum for further comment before publication.
  • An additional possibility would be for the lead writer to introduce the topic on a members-only thread to invite ideas and answer questions, allowing one or two weeks before starting their draft.
  • Depending on who the lead writers are, one or two documents could be on the go in parallel.
  • We think it would be a good idea to start with just one document, to try out our method.
I hope I've done the discussion justice!

And as a reminder, here are @Jonathan Edwards' top seven proposed priorities (there are seven more):

1. What is ME/CFS? (Symptoms, diagnosis)
2. What is meant by PEM and why it is significant, its relation to fatigue and fatiguability
3. Prognosis, including variation over time and likely difference in young people
4. Treatments (the fact that there are none, apart from for individual symptoms such as insomnia and headache)
5. What PwME can do for themselves (pacing?)
6. The realities of severe and very severe ME/CFS and the need for evidence on how best to handle them
7. Environmental and food sensitivities, their management and impact on hospital care

I think we're already in a good place to start. Shall we begin by finding a lead writer (who will also essentially be the project leader) for Item #1, 'What is ME/CFS?'

Speak up if you want to do it!

If there are multiple candidates, we will need to think of a way to decide among them. All part of the learning process!

@Jonathan Edwards, I hope you'll consider being part of this...

[Edited to add] Prospective lead-writers! Would you like to give us a sense of your background that would make you a good fit for the role?
Click to expand...


5. What PwME can do for themselves (pacing?)

I'm flagging this but hoping it's just because we are only at the 'got to title it something stage' but I have a real issue with the term pacing in particular or in reccommending it. I'm hoping the 'concept' is OK underneath but I'm not loving the title as it is. I think it needs to somehow cover more. And can't be 'just pacing' - although boy can we leather that term and how misused and abused it us, and tell people to watch out for how the ambiguity is used to mislead people into other things (where they are increasing stuff or someone want to micromanage certain bits and pretend other exertions either don't exist or 'dont count'). To me pacing in laymans terms isn't even a management strategy that's any good, and no better or more used than someone having to do that one big thing at the start of the day then radical rest until they are recovered (and that's my problem with selling it).

At the end of the day it will need to be about 'reduction' in exertion (of all kinds), including cumulatively, and increase in proper good environment and rest, and no amount of spreading things out can make that compromise/sacrifice/the invidious choices involved suddenly be magically possible - even if some pwme do become astoundingly tenacious and efficient at using their precious energy to pull off an astounding amount with compared to others, including by cutting out things by having grocery deliveries and not wasting energy on x, y, z anymore.

And I'd like to think we'd step past the 'theoretical' that so many clinic type things seem to play about with as example calendars and into the 'reality' where that drill or alarm going off for an hour this morning just wiped out my day from 10am. And now as I need to be able to function on a telephone call at 2pm tomorrow I will have to be in bed until then (or when my body wakes up recovered and OK whichever comes first), skipping shower and everything, and hope I can function by then.

I also think it almost needs to be thinking about a companion if it is only going to be to the pwme, which is 'what those close to pwme need to understand', not to tell them to monitor that the pwme is 'behaving themselves' but so they know how to not undermine them and what that might mean eg 'if someone says to you I need you to cook dinner, turn the music off now, pick me up because I can't drive - then just do it and don't question or discuss it right now'. Or how yes you might all need to move home if that building work is going to be going on like that for long term and there's nowhere in the home it can be escaped from.

For a 'work version' it would be things like 'not only do the adjustments, but do them fast because if you dilly for six months leaving them eg on full time with that issue then by six months in they'll need that reduction to be to 2 days not 3-4 as they'll be iller'. And 'that's great you've given them somewhere to rest but be aware whether it is actually a long walk there and back making it moot on an energy front'. And to remember that any of these talks about 'how to help' or processes add more workload/energy expenditure on top of normal work often

Energy conservation and understanding the impact of exertion (of all kinds including eg noise) as general principles of 'what we have to do' I can sort of live with but in the making others aware that is the tyranny/job we are having to life our lives under - not a panacea, and certainly spreading things out isn't possible for many of us eg where you have a lot of medical appointments (wayyy above threshold) vs severe ME/CFS can be a common situation/even norm that many live under, where you are 'saving up for a shower once a week' then paying for it with PEM as an approach.

I think physiosforme did well on this, particularly remembering their early social media stuff where they 'got' that a lot of people were having to use 'radical rest' to 'do life' and cope with a world that didn't 'fit' the tiny units pacing would assume/those more severe have to play with. Medical appointment or important chore like showering = radical rest before, PEM after for many days (and then 'roll with it' on sleep reversal from the PEM) isn't just also valid but it's the only possible way for those who are having to roll the dice on 'making it happen' for things way beyond their threshold, and we should eb respected for the discipline and how much committment it took to get there (not the classic 'but you managed to travel to the appointment the other day')

On that basis I think selling the idea we can all 'pace' is an issue, and the difference between those who can and those who don't isn't expertise. I think the term pacing is far too simplistic of the life we have no choice but to lead to do our best to contain the harm.

I'd have a big worry if this section was too 'positive' rather than describing real life and including what we need others to understand and not be undermining. We need to get that the idea 'pacing is a management tool' is just another stick to beat those more ill or who are in PEM a lot with, and assume it is their fault for getting it.

From my experience too the most damaging thing was going over consistently 'a bit' (not necessarily into obvious PEM) then not getting the full break to fully rest off what had accumulated soon enough, with regard to long term deterioration that stuck. So I'd be as concerned to be describing that people need that 'catch up rest' as the 'ride the limits under PEM' idea - particularly given I see how people like PeteGladwell etc think and I genuinely believe he thinks that this 'pacing to behave right' and 'pretend function' is good and he's cracked that nut and yet that's what I spent decades being forced into and it's the worst thing, probably more damaging that an intense going over short-term where at least you know quickly it wasn't good and you need to treat it fully with rest and not to do it again.
 
Last edited:
AliceLily said:
Can we have a glossary of words/terms for ME that the ME community prefers? I sometimes use terms like 'resting routine', 'managing the ME', and often wonder whether I should be using 'pacing' instead. I don't know if anyone has mentioned this yet.
Click to expand...

I've just cross-posed on my issues with the term 'pacing' and indeed the suggestion of it. Mentioning that physiosforme seemed to really be getting it at some point a few years back when they picked up on radical rest, and eg how to deal with sleep reversal (from PEM or overdoing it) and whether to 'roll with it until it comes back round' as trying to manhandle it makes the ehxuastion and therefore the trying to control your sleep worse.

I'd also like to see us debunk the 'try not to sleep' nonsense as if meditation is somehow superior (tho the quiet room lying down is a yes, some need it) there's a lot of unproven and seemingly just values-based or myths-based stuff behind that sort of stuff. Or maybe it's because they are used to working with very mild or 'just CF or fatigued' people.

I think this terminology and bringing in that rest and lying down are actually important things (not 'prescribed' when you don't feel you need it and aren't more severe of course, but yes actually taking almost the video of Gerada at the point where she says 'and that's where you push through and get better' and putting a big meme or whatever it is called over and it and saying uhuh noise and replacing it with 'this is where you need to learn to listen to your body and if you've been CBTd either directly or without consent via it being embedded/ society then deprogramme those messages' and the same with the sleep thing, because if you push through rather than nap then my sleep is worse later because I'm too ehxuasted)

I'm not necessarily keen on the term 'routine' for anything, because of the fondness for micromanagement, behavioural and 'sleep hygiene' type stuff that goes on over here with certain persons trying to make those who are over-exerted by the world not being made for them to do things in the way they need to 'responsible for their own exhaustion'. ie instead of it being 'make sure you let them do their rest routine undisturbed so it's quiet and uninterrupted between 1-3pm' (at work, at home) it becomes 'have you been doing your routine properly' when you have a bad day.

I'm also very up for time really being spent within these documents nailing terms and words for some of these really important things that have been lumbered with less than appropriate ones, or don't have a succinct descriptor (because repeititon if we can nail some of these is a way for it to actually get taken in by people)
 
Sasha said:
Thanks for making me look at this again! I've presented this as an option but looking now at how many 'Likes' Trish's post on this and how many mine didn't, I don't think I've represented the consensus (sorry, @Trish!). So let's go with it, I think, unless the lead writer has a massive objection.
Click to expand...
I don't think I'm the only one (?) who doesn't just 'like' something as a vote of agreement in general across s4me, I could disagree but find it an interesting point, or in particular something not being liked might just be because I hadn't processed it at the time, is a longer read etc and want to know to come back to it or not read it even if it's in the middle chronologically - so it mightn't be the best measure to use on its own vs eg polls and comments for some of decisions coming up. Having said that I do agree with Trish's post!
 
Hutan said:
Thanks Peter. I think that's a very good reminder of the range of practical information we have here. Something to keep in mind as we plan a website down the track - we need to highlight that that information is there.


I think it is very important that the topic is introduced in a Members Only thread and there is say two weeks allowed for people to comment e.g. to link material covering the topic that they think is good, as well as comments about problems to avoid. Perhaps at the end of the two weeks, people could nominate themselves to have access to a private subforum where the first draft is produced?
Click to expand...

Agreed. It would be much more of a shame to eg rush the first stage then realise later on that eg a certain group of pwme hadn't been represented and had a point that turned the priorities on its head a bit of what was included or the focus/gist. SO maybe leaving room for those who see this but eg can't comment for x days to note their intention too ?

And I think we need to be open to the idea of some of these being somewhat a slower process where someone doesn't need to have some non-ME experience but is actually a compiler and curator - the most important starting point is what does and doesn't go in, and then within that using group-work to perfect some of the 'get the terms right' where some of these are wicked problems.

I don't see any issue with someone of these having an open finishing date other than the needs of the person who is leading on it and their exhaustion/committment level. And them going at a slower pace for more time for such stages if they are mid tackling something.

I'd like to think too we could be open to some being a relay race where there is enough notes at the start someone could pick it up if it becomes a lot for someone or they get a sudden illness or appointment and the project 'gist' could stay the same because the groundwork at the start shows where things have come from and thoughts etc.

We could have some topics that are as a final output going to be as short as the physiosforme one for physios in other areas who get a pwme coming to them for treatment for another issue but need to adjust for those additional limitations.

I don't see it as a major issue for in that instance it not almost offer line-by-line help on getting the wording itself right, but the decisions on content and focus and understanding the needs of the audience (and the needs of all the different pwme who might be affected by that situation) being primary in who might be great should they want to have a go.

What could be useful as things go on - and I'm not sure needs to be 'assigned' is to have some who maybe have more experience looking 'across' the literature and picking up where certain terms will be common and we can hopefully try and use them consistently, or checking for the jigsaw/coherence across these (so we don't have any inadvertent contradictions across them that aren't explained). But it could be 'asked for' at certain stages (and people who feel confident in that could respond if they can). And of course also knowing when a chunk can be just purloined to save reinventing a wheel, and to get things to stick by using the same words (and where we might want to marry with something some other org has written well elsewhere to get a term or description starting to be used across places) even if it might be cut or adapted slightly for context.

Heck someone leading it could have experience themselves but be too tired or buried in it to feel they can step back etc anyway..
 
Last edited:
Thanks @Sasha for getting the ball rolling on this and also for your summaries, very helpful to those of us unable to keep up. The summaries are pretty much all I've managed to read. From that my impression is that most of the discussion has been about what to produce as a priority, and how to go about the writing process (which in my experience is always much more difficult and consequently takes a lot longer than you think - not to put anyone off, just a little expectation management)

There seems to have been less discussion about how to achieve the widest possible reach for any resources produced. That could be at least as difficult as creating them in the first place. It's my sense that a lot of the charities don't like S4ME because we call into question some of their poorly evidenced but deeply held convictions about what ME is and how it should be treated; they'll likely continue to prefer doing their own thing. Those attitudes will be hard to shift

An additional challenge that may need to be addressed somehow in the materials is patient expectations. Many patients, especially new ones, refuse to believe that knowledge and treatment are as limited as they are. Understandable - it is an outrage - but unhelpful if they then specifically seek out information that gives the illusion of explanation and hope, and as we know there's plenty of that to be found, including from sources patients would reasonably expect to be authoritative

This makes it more difficult but also even more important that someone - and the S4ME community has the skills to be that someone - starts to put out more factual material, got to start somewhere and hope it gradually gains traction. In the short term though reception in some quarters is likely to be less than enthusiastic. There needs to be a strategy for getting the materials widely known and accepted as a reliable go-to resource
 
Ravn said:
There needs to be a strategy for getting the materials widely known and accepted as a reliable go-to resource
Click to expand...
I think there are a few things we can do relatively easily.

1. A more appealing, accessible entry to the forum, with a website making the resources available

2. good use of search engine magic, to promote our content

3. ongoing liaison with patient charities.
  • Some, a minority to be sure, but often influential, already think along the lines of most of the active members here and might be happy to use and promote the content.
  • There are large parts of the world where there are no charities at all, and I hope that we can reach out to people there and help them start off on the right track. Ready made content might have some of the same appeal to charities as a press release has for a busy journalist - it does the job quickly and easily.
  • And, I think we just keep talking to the other existing patient charities, pointing out issues with existing content and asking for improvements, and encouraging our members to get involved in the governance of charities and supporting them when they do.
4. Promote the content when clinical guidelines are written or revised. Being able to point to well crafted content that has been scrutinised by many eyes would be really useful when making submissions on guidelines.


There's a couple of things that I think may make our reality-based approach more popular going forward. A lot of people with ME/CFS following a Covid-19 infection will be getting to the stage of having tried out a whole lot of hyped treatments and realising that there's actually nothing out there. I think there's a natural cycle for many people with ME/CFS where first you think you can cure yourself by living better, and then you think that one of the hyped treatment ideas is going to fix you, and then maybe you try one more and then you start to realise that no one really knows what they are talking about. And that's when you get interested in making sure that everyone knows how little is known and that something gets done about it. I think it often takes people a few years of confusion and delusion to get to that point. So, that should be happening for a lot of people, any time now...

Also, I'm hoping that DecodeME or other quality research is going to start shedding a light on causes and risk factors soon. I think people are going to want to understand what it all means. And I think and hope that the good researchers will see the forum as a place to explain what they are finding. So, I hope we will attract people here for that and they'll pick up some of the other ideas too.
 
Don't know if this has been mentioned, but I'm wondering if there could be a document outlining the most promising research avenues that have significant barriers delaying them or preventing them from happening. Mainly thinking about the financial barrier to SequenceME, but also other research that requires very expensive equipment or very large populations. Maybe non-financial barriers as well.

Maybe a document explaining the value in pursuing these research avenues (feasibility, expected value of the findings, etc) could inspire interest that leads to donors or other support.

It could be more of a living document to change as new opportunities arise (and hopefully old ones get the support they need).
 
bobbler said:
and how those more severe often have had bad luck or it’s that slippery slope
Click to expand...
Practically everyone I’ve heard of from my generation, sick several decades, were told to either push on; do graded exercise therapy; avoid support groups or that their illness was psychological or some vague malady that was not properly managed. This isn’t ill luck , thousands would not be in the severe category if they hadn’t have gone through the NHS for their heaithcare ( the NHS being the primary drivers of this kind of dismissal, tough love approach). This applies to all the young women I've heard of in the UK who've died, we rarely examine how they became so severe in the first place. Add to that the failure , because of the nhs opting out of providing any specialist care, of management of aspects like orthostatic intolerance or pots , it not getting any appropriate diagnosis or management etc and I think that putting severe ME down largely to "bad luck" is completely inappropriate.
Creekside said:
I'm not suggesting that the general diagnostic criteria shouldn't require PEM; just that it isn't 100% required, and that some people will meet all the other criteria yet lack PEM, so there needs to be at least some allowance for that. I had pretty classic PEM and then cured that and still have the other ME symptoms (just not getting worse after exertion), so did I suddenly switch to a chronic disease that is not ME? Shattered bones and bullet wounds have clear yes/no criteria, but ME isn't that easily defined.
Click to expand...
IMO This should be what the label Chronic Fatigue syndrome is used for. Chronic Fatigue syndrome was always the Umbrella that encapsulated people with a complex fatigue syndrome that may or may not include post exertional malaise. ME sat inside that umbrella, in the way that migraines with more specific requirements sits inside headaches. However then it became A Mantra that m.e has to equal CFS /be interchangeable with it and CFS now is being used to mean M.E & require pem too , which leaves surely, a lot of people homeless and saddles pwm,e still with an inappropriate name t.. i've also noticed people with long Covid who say they can't have m.e because they don't have post-exertional malaise and yet they would have , in my opinion , a bog standard Chronic Fatigue syndrome without Post exertional malaise.
 
Last edited:
Trish said:
It's great to see so much enthusiasm for this idea, and I don't want to discourage anyone, but before anyone races ahead with organisation and deciding who does what, I think if this is to be an official forum project producing materials that are published by the forum, the committee will need to have a say in how this is done. Please can we slow down a bit for a few days to give the committee time to catch up.
Click to expand...
Thanks, @Trish, that's entirely reasonable! I'll link upstream to your post.

Trish said:
We should also be aware that this discussion has only been running for a couple of days. There may be other forum members who would like to make suggestions before the process is set up who haven't had a chance to join in yet. Let's take a few days to catch our breath.
Click to expand...
Also entirely reasonable. I will hold my horses! :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom