How could the IOM have got it so wrong ?
My
inability to safely leave my wife and attend the Nurse of the Year
Award Ceremony in London, a glittering, prestigious affair,
highlights how chronically hidden the Severely Affected – and those
who care for them are.
Another
stark illustration is how the most severely affected are excluded
from the recent IOM Report.
How
could the IOM have got it so
wrong ?
wrong ?
It's
taken us a long time to dig down through the layers, but here is the
Report's fundamental flaw:
The
IOM’s contracted task to
review
the literature and recommend clinical diagnostic criteria based on
the literature,
was wrongly worded; it was almost guaranteed not to bring new
insight , clearly identify ME or protect it from psychiatric
intervention and dominance.
The
group could only review the current ME/ CFS/CF literature, which is
deeply flawed.
It
means that the Group did not look at the full symptom experience in
ME.
In no other disease definition are the most severely affected
excluded.
“ME/CFS” , which the
IOM has not attempted to separate out into ME, CFS and Chronic
Fatigue, encompasses a vast range of patients. All the time that
ME, as defined by Ramsay and the WHO , is confused with Chronic
Fatigue, or is ignored or wrongly misrepresented as Chronic Fatigue
Syndrome, there will continue to be little hope of proper medical
investigation or representation.
Simply put, if you look in a box
where CFS, ME and CF are all muddled together, with no clear
distinctions made in the research, you will only find more of the
same : lack of clarity, ambiguity, uncertainty and confusion
alongside a gross misunderstanding of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis.
If the IOM had wanted to
identify ME as a distinct and clear disease, it should have looked
outside the box.
It
should have considered what is missing, what could be new and true,
what patient experience and evidence is available to illuminate the
lives , symptoms and illness experience, especially of the most
severely affected, in whom the illness is most fully manifest.
The
IOM should
have started from the fullness of the illness and come up with
something new fresh and hopeful, not more of the same tired old
rehashed information, with limited symptom recognition, purporting to
represent people with ME yet spectacularly failing to do so,
especially the most ill whose circumstances are so dire.
If
you do not have the right task, you will not come up with the right
answers. Surely this is self evident?
STONEBIRD
Greg Crowhurst
March 2015
Comments
Post a Comment