Before reading this research/advocacy information given in the links below, please be aware of the following facts: 2. The research referred to on this website varies considerably in quality. Some is of a high scientific standard and relates wholly to M.E. and uses the correct terminology. Other studies are included which may only have partial or minor possible relevance to M.E., use unscientific terms/concepts such as ‘CFS,’ ‘ME/CFS,’ ‘CFS/ME,’ ‘CFIDS’ or Myalgic ‘Encephalopathy’ and also include a significant amount of misinformation. Before reading this research it is also essential that the reader be aware of the most commonly used ‘CFS’ propaganda, as explained in A warning on ‘CFS’ and ‘ME/CFS’ research and advocacy and in more detail in Putting research and articles on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis into context.
1. Myalgic Encephalomyelitis and ‘Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’ are not synonymous terms. The overwhelming majority of research on ‘CFS’ or ‘CFIDS’ or ‘ME/CFS’ or ‘CFS/ME’ or ‘ICD-CFS’ does not involve M.E. patients and is not relevant in any way to M.E. patients. If the M.E. community were to reject all ‘CFS’ labelled research as ‘only relating to ‘CFS’ patients’ (including research which describes those abnormalities/characteristics unique to M.E. patients), however, this would seem to support the myth that ‘CFS’ is just a ‘watered down’ definition of M.E. and that M.E. and ‘CFS’ are virtually the same thing and share many characteristics.
A very small number of ‘CFS’ studies refer in part to people with M.E. but it may not always be clear which parts refer to M.E. The A warning on ‘CFS’ and ‘ME/CFS’ research and advocacy paper is recommended reading and includes a checklist to help readers assess the relevance of individual ‘CFS’ studies to M.E. (if any) and explains some of the problems with this heterogeneous and skewed research.
In future, it is essential that M.E. research again be conducted using only M.E. defined patients and using only the term M.E. The bogus, financially-motivated disease category of ‘CFS’ must be abandoned.
2. The research referred to on this website varies considerably in quality. Some is of a high scientific standard and relates wholly to M.E. and uses the correct terminology. Other studies are included which may only have partial or minor possible relevance to M.E., use unscientific terms/concepts such as ‘CFS,’ ‘ME/CFS,’ ‘CFS/ME,’ ‘CFIDS’ or Myalgic ‘Encephalopathy’ and also include a significant amount of misinformation. Before reading this research it is also essential that the reader be aware of the most commonly used ‘CFS’ propaganda, as explained in A warning on ‘CFS’ and ‘ME/CFS’ research and advocacy and in more detail in Putting research and articles on Myalgic Encephalomyelitis into context.
Magical Medicine: How to make a disease disappear Professor Hooper (large PDF file)
HFME comments: This is a very important paper, and a positive contribution. It is very long but has at least been bookmarked allowing for easier reading of sections. This paper is admirable; however a brief critique of definitions and terminology is sadly necessary.
(HFME Critique: This paper includes an awful quote at the start about how the recent XMRV research 'proves once and for all' that 'ME/CFS' is not a psychological disease which reinforce some of the most harmful myths about M.E. - namely that M.E. is the same as 'CFS,' that the mixed term ME/CFS is useful or helpful in any way and that the reason patients are abused and mistreated as mentally ill is due to a lack of evidence.
This is absolutely not the case, as Hooper himself has explained many times over in the past - the problem is that evidence is ignored for political reasons, not that it does not exist. Evidence that M.E. is a distinct neurological disease has existed for many many decades now, although it is true that we have no tests which can help diagnose 'CFS' but then we never will, as 'CFS' does not exist as a distinct disease and as soon as serious abnormalities are found on testing, one no longer qualifies for a 'CFS' misdiagnosis.
The list of problems goes on; Klimas is NOT a M.E. expert, nor is Dr Suzanne Vernon, they study 'CFS' or ‘ME/CFS’ and support many of the myths of 'CFS.' The MEA are not a genuine M.E. advocacy group, nor are the NCF. CFIDS is another term for 'CFS' not M.E. A significant % of the facts given here for 'ME/CFS' are of course about 'CFS' and not M.E. A prime example is when it is claimed that bacterial infections, Ross River virus and EBV can all cause 'ME/CFS' - yes they may cause a disease which can be misdiagnosed as 'CFS' but these are NOT causes of genuine M.E. Ramsay, Hyde and Dowsett have made this very clear.
How can saying 'ME/CFS' is perfectly valid and criticising 'CFS/ME' make the M.E. community look anything other than completely illogical! It's crazy, they are the same thing. Wessely himself first started using such mixed terms and they serve his interests well. ME/CFS and CFS/ME are just different terms for 'CFS' - an artificial syndrome based on fatigue which describes many different heterogeneous patient groups.
Mixing M.E. and 'CFS' via the unhelpful term 'ME/CFS' just creates confusion. This paper, as with Hooper's other excellent papers such as 'The Mental Health Movement' is wonderful and Hooper is a real super-hero for patients...but what a shame so much of the clarity and basic logic of the argument is lost, and so much momentum and legitimate shock, by the fact that M.E. has itself been unfairly and unhelpfully 'disappeared' here by Hooper, in favour of the mix of two very different entities that is ME/CFS and defending the concept of 'CFS' that has been so much the cause of our abuse and mistreatment. As Hooper himself has said, we need real M.E. research and for ‘CFS’ to be abandoned if we are to get anywhere!
ME/CFS is NOT a distinct and classified neurological disease as claimed. The WHO has no listing for 'ME/CFS' nor 'CFS/ME' and many different definitions are also used for both terms. Real M.E. advocates and patients do not 'take heart' from anything done by the useless, myth supporting IACFS/ME group...or care much about the CDC 'CFS' program perhaps being slightly improved!
The facts of M.E. and the bogus disease category of 'CFS' are so much more compelling than confused information that is often contradictory about 'ME/CFS.' The point needs to be made more clearly that those with M.E. and those who have improved via GET and CBT etc. and are used in most 'CFS' studies are an entirely different and unrelated patient groups! Yes, bias is a problem and political interests interfering in science, but so is the fact that 'CFS' lets groups compare completely different patient groups as if they were the same. Talking about 'ME/CFS' validates the 'CFS' model, as does implying that all 'CFS' research has relevance to M.E. (as you do when you place M.E. in brackets beside every mention of 'CFS' in a study) when this is very much not the case.
It is also true that a significant percentage of those misdiagnosed with 'CFS' are mentally ill! Implying otherwise just confuses the issue further, especially as there is a lot of proof that some of those diagnosed with 'CFS' are mentally ill. It makes it look like WE are twisting and selectively viewing the science, instead of them!
For more information on these topics please see:
End of critique.)
Hopefully the target audience will see past these problems to the shocking facts at hand, and even if they don't (the vested interest groups involved are immensely powerful after all and huge sums of money are at stake) three cheers for Hooper for working so hard to at least try to achieve justice for patients. This is so necessary and so it is priceless and very much appreciated. We need many more such gutsy and dedicated doctors!
Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME): a review with emphasis on key findings in biomedical research by Professor Hooper 2006, printed in the BMJ
‘Undoubtedly the perverse use of chronic fatigue syndrome, to impose a psychiatric definition for ME by allying it to fatigue syndromes, has delayed research, the discovery of effective treatment(s), and care and support for those suffering from this illness
I would propose that the use of CFS should now be abandoned and that, following the Minister of Health’s assurances, the WHO definition is now accepted and used in all official documentations. The excellent work on the biological aspects of ME, already carried out by several leading research groups, now requires significant funding.’
J. Clin. Pathol. published online 25 Aug 2006; doi:10.1136/jcp.2006.042408 Available: http://jcp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/abstract/jcp.2006.042408v1
Gibson Inquiry - Day 1 April 18th 2006 - Group Testimonies Comments by Professor Malcolm Hooper, 21st April 2006
This was an excellent meeting that was well handled and allowed every participant to make their case. It is difficult to see how the following conclusions can be avoided by any Panel that espouses independence and evidence-lead medicine and science.
Ø The psychiatric theories of ME, under whatever name, are dead. They have been exposed and placarded as flawed and invalid through the testimonies, pain and distress of those suffering from ME and the imposed sacrifices of their carers. They must be abandoned forthwith.....
Whose hidden agenda? Comments by Professor Malcolm Hooper on the Prins review, May 2006
Comment on Section 3 of The diagnosis, treatment and management of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)/(ME) in adults and children Work to support the NICE Guidelines carried out by Anne-Marie Bagnall, Susanne Hempel, Duncan Chambers, Vickie Orton and Carol Forbes Centre for Reviews and Dissemination University of York October 2005
Comment by Professor Malcolm Hooper & Horace Reid, January 2006
What is ME? What is CFS? Information for Clinicians & Lawyers by Eileen Marshall, Margaret Williams & Professor Malcolm Hooper, 2001
Lawyers may wish to consider if a small group of exceptionally influential doctors should be allowed to determine public policy without there being some external moderation. They may wish to consider why disease definition has become socially constructed, resulting in political tensions between sufferers, medical science and the modern State, a consequence of which is the intentional construction of "mental illness" by some groups of medical professionals resulting in stigma caused by the on-going denial. (172)
If clinicians and lawyers are unaware of this background and accept the readily proffered psychiatric explanations as if objective and based on sound scientific research, they will be unable to support their patients / clients with ME / ICD-CFS and will risk failing in their professional duty in this difficult area.
[Contains an in-depth medical and political overview of M.E]
This lecture purporting to tell the true story of Gulf War Syndrome (GWS) was a travesty of the truth. No real consideration was given to any other studies but those of Wessely and his group, with his 1999 Lancet paper providing most of the information, together with his notorious paper on War Syndromes (BMJ Jones et al, 2002; Hooper, BMJ 2002).
A Letter to Gresham College from Professor Malcolm Hooper, January 26th 2006
I write to express my extreme disquiet about the proceedings surrounding the lecture which led to many, including myself being totally misled about whether the lecture would be cancelled or not.
Pinching's Perception? by Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams, 20th January 2006
The recently-released Minutes of the UK All Party Parliamentary Group on ME of the meeting held on 16th November 2005 contain a record of the presentation made at that meeting by Professor Tony Pinching, Associate Dean for Cornwall at the Peninsula Medical School and Chair of the NHS CFS/ME Service Investment Steering Group. It is this Steering Group that defined the criteria for the new “CFS” Centres in the UK; it also oversaw the bidding for and the allocation of the ٦.5 million of Government funding. Thus, as Chair of the CFS/ME Service Investment Steering Group, a heavy weight of accountability rests on Pinching’s shoulders.
One can but ask yet again why someone in a position of such responsibility as Professor Pinching appears to be intent on wilfully ignoring the large body of international researchers calling for sub-grouping of “CFS” as a matter of urgency.
Letter to the BMJ by Professor Malcolm Hooper, Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams re: NICE 24th January 2006
THE GROUP ON SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH INTO MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS (THE GIBSON PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY)
The information in this document is relevant to the Gibson Inquiry, specifically the continued ignoring by the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) and its commercial advisers of the compelling scientific evidence that myalgic encephalomyelitis / chronic fatigue syndrome is not a primary psychiatric disorder. If eligibility for certain benefits becomes contingent upon the intended implementation of compulsory psychiatric “rehabilitation” regimes, in cases of authentic ME/CFS it is likely to result in serious relapse that may be life-long (and may in some cases even result in death)
Professor Malcolm Hooper, Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams, December 2005
Illustrations of Clinical Observations and International Research Findings from 1955 to 2005 that demonstrate the organic aetiology of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome by Malcolm Hooper Eileen Marshall Margaret Williams, 12th December 2005
Prepared for The Group on Scientific Research into Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (the Gibson Parliamentary Inquiry) that has been established “to assess the progress of scientific research on ME since the publication of the Chief Medical Officer’s Working Group Report into CFS/ME in 2002, (and) to increase public understanding of scientific research into ME/CFS (and) to identify research and funding requirements in establishing the cause of ME/CFS”.
This document is a compilation of illustrations taken from the published evidence-base of the organic aetiology of ME/CFS over the fifty years from 1955 to 2005.
[This 175 page document may take longer than usual to load]
Evidence-based Policy or Policy-based Evidence? by Professor Malcolm Hooper Eileen Marshall Margaret Williams, 20th November 2005
In relation to the forthcoming Parliamentary Inquiry into ME/CFS to be chaired by Dr Ian Gibson MP (former Dean of Biology at the University of East Anglia and former Chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Select Committee, to whom the UK ME community owes considerable gratitude for his willingness to assist where others who could have done so have declined), a number of important points have presented themselves; for the avoidance of doubt, some of these points are placed on public record.
FOR UK PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY INTO ME/CFS Chronological list of documents relevant to the Inquiry, authored by Professor Malcolm Hooper, Eileen Marshall and Margaret Williams, 7th November 2005
ME: WHY NO ACCOUNTABILITY? A synopsis for the UK Parliamentary Inquiry By Professor Malcolm Hooper and Margaret Williams, 18th August 2005
The Montague/Hooper Paper by Sally Montague and Professor Malcolm Hooper, 2001
Full title: CONCERNS ABOUT THE FORTHCOMING UK CHIEF MEDICAL OFFICER’S REPORT ON MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS (ME) AND CHRONIC FATIGUE SYNDROME (CFS), NOTABLY THE INTENTION TO ADVISE CLINICIANS THAT ONLY LIMITED INVESTIGATIONS ARE NECESSARY
We are unable to agree with advice to clinicians that only limited investigations are necessary or appropriate for ME/CFS sufferers and believe that such a view is medically and scientifically untenable; hence we believe there is a legitimate case for making this known in advance of the Report being issued. In our opinion, it is entirely unacceptable to advise clinicians that investigations on ME/CFS patients should be limited to a minimal basic routine screen, especially as basic screening is known to be often normal in ME/CFS.
In our opinion, when taken in consideration of all that is already known about the biomarkers of ME/CFS, the evidence of serious pathology presented at Seattle emphasises the unacceptability of advising that such pathology should not be fully investigated. It also underlines the fallaciousness of advising that such substantial pathology can be satisfactorily treated by cognitive behavioural therapy or graded exercise; thus we believe it is imperative for people to be aware that the most influential members of the CMO’s Working Group are apparently still determined to proceed along such avenues despite all the evidence which has been put before them.
[Includes a summary of much of the medical research into ME]
CONCEPTS OF ACCOUNTABILITY? by Professor Malcolm Hooper and The Hooper Team, 2001
This present document should be read in conjunction with the amended original Montague / Hooper paper
The release of the original Montague/Hooper document brought forth poignant worldwide gratitude from researchers and patients alike; it also brought forth an immediate barrage of letters which essentially amounted to a threatening campaign against the authors; these letters were written almost entirely by Dr Charles Shepherd, Medical Director of the UK ME Association and member of the CMO’s Key Group charged with preparing the forthcoming report, whose membership of HealthWatch was mentioned by Montague and Hooper in their paper. On his own written admission Dr Shepherd caused the Chairman of HealthWatch (solicitor Malcolm Brahams of Messrs David Wineman, Craven House, 121 Kingsway, London WC2B 6NX) to send official letters to Professor Hooper.
Disturbingly, the prime authors of the UK Chief Medical Officer’s report on CFS/ME are apparently determined to equate ME with “CFS” as one single entity, which they refer to as “CFS/ME” (see below). To do so takes no account of the different interpretations of the undifferentiated term “CFS” and it is likely to perpetuate the existing confusion to the detriment of those with non-Oxford defined CFS. It is already known that the CMO’s Report on CFS/ME will recommend psychiatric management approaches: such approaches may be appropriate when considering the Oxford definition of CFS but may be harmful when considering the international interpretation of “CFS” which more closely equates with ME.
Montague and Hooper believe that by seeking to equate one specific syndrome or subgroup with another syndrome or subgroup which does not have the same features, the CMO’s Working Group may be doing a grave disservice to both patients and medical science: they believe it is scientifically unacceptable that one name should refer to two different case definitions, each of which having different symptom profiles. Montague and Hooper are concerned at the repeated refusal by the CMO’s Key Group to acknowledge the clinical difference between ME and other forms of CFS, a difference which many believe has important implications for management and treatment outcomes, as well as for service provision.
[A solid overview of the medical and political facts surrounding M.E. and CFS in the UK.]
Full title: A CONSIDERATION OF THE ROLE OF PROFESSOR SIMON WESSELY AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE “WESSELY SCHOOL” IN THE PERCEPTION OF MYALGIC ENCEPHALOMYELITIS (ME) IN THE UK
To the detriment of the sick, the deciding factor governing policies on medical research and on the management and treatment of patients is increasingly determined not by medical need but by economic considerations. Evidence is presented in this document to show that:
In the UK, patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME, also known as Chronic Fatigue Syndrome or CFS), particularly children, have suffered gross and barbaric abuse and persistent denigration as a consequence of the beliefs of certain psychiatrists who are attempting to control the national agenda for this complex and severe neuro-immunological disorder. These psychiatrists are shown to be clearly in breach of the first tenet of medicine --- first do no harm--- in that by their words and deeds they have wreaked havoc in the lives of ME/ICD-CFS patients and their families by their arrogant pursuit of a psychiatric construct of the disorder which ignores the abundant clinical and scientific evidence (widely presented in the international medical and scientific literature) of the organic nature of ME/ICD-CFS
There have been persistent and frequently covert attempts by these psychiatrists to subvert the international classification of this disorder, with destructive consequences for those affected. To the serious disadvantage of patients, these psychiatrists have propagated untruths and falsehoods about the disorder to the medical, legal, insurance and media communities, as well as to Government Ministers and to Members of Parliament, resulting in the withdrawal and erosion of both social and financial support
Influenced by these psychiatrists, Government bodies such as the Medical Research Council have continued to propagate the same falsehoods with the result that patients are left without any hope of understanding or of health service provision or delivery. As a consequence, Government funding into the biomedical aspects of the disorder is non-existent
This coterie of psychiatrists has proven affiliations with corporate industry and has insidiously infiltrated all the major institutions, directing funding for research into an exclusively psychiatric model of the disorder, focusing on “management strategies” involving psychiatric techniques, even though such techniques have been shown to be at best of no lasting value and at worst to be harmful to patients with ME/ICD-CFS
Ignoring the Evidence by Eileen Marshall, Margaret Williams & Professor Malcolm Hooper, 2003 A response to the final version of the MRC 'CFS/ME' Research Advisory Group Strategy
Having read the report, we conclude that it is like the proverbial curate’s egg: “good in parts”. However, in terms of demonstrating an understanding of ME/ICD-CFS and a grasp of the issues (and thus of providing hope of real progress to those whose life is blighted by it), the bad parts seem to outweigh the good: essentially the report is, as widely predicted, simply “more of the same” from a Government agency which is under the nominal political control of the Labour Science Minister Lord (David) Sainsbury (whose Linbury Trust has for so long financially supported those UK psychiatrists of the “Wessely School” who claim that ME does not exist and that “CFS” is a mental disorder which must be managed by cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise).
The Terminology of ME & CFS by Professor Malcolm Hooper (undated)
Despite the claims of some psychiatrists, it is not true that there is no evidence of inflammation of the brain and spinal cord in ME; there is, but these psychiatrists ignore or deny that evidence. It is true that there is no evidence of inflammation of the brain or spinal cord in states of chronic fatigue or "tiredness".
It is also true that neither the 1991 (Oxford) criteria nor the 1994 (CDC) criteria select those with ME, as they both expressly include those with somatisation disorders and they expressly exclude those with any physical signs of disease (as is the case in ME), so by definition, patients with signs of neurological disease have been excluded from study.
It is also true that Professor Simon Wessely and his colleagues use the terms "fatigue", "chronic fatigue", "the chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)" and "myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME)" as synonymous. Such obfuscation has greatly hindered research.
Engaging with M.E.by Professor Malcolm Hooper Available in hard copy and as a cost-price DVD Hard copies may be obtained (price ٢.00 plus ٟ.10 postage) from Malcolm Hooper, Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry, School of Sciences, University of Sunderland, Sunderland, SR2 3SD, UK. [Copies of 'What is ME? What is CFS? are also available]
This is a fully referenced 85 page document which contains colour photographs. It is dedicated to Derek Peters of the Northern Ireland Campaign for ME/CFS Healthcare (who sponsored the publication), to the late Dr John Richardson (a compassionate clinician and champion of more than 4000 ME sufferers for over 50 years) and to “all who suffer with and care for people with ME, who have taught me so much about courage, endurance and being fully human”.
In his customary robust form, Hooper deals with facts, not beliefs or speculation and those facts are soundly based on biochemistry, which those who promote a primary psychiatric pathoaetiology will find difficult to refute with any degree of credibility.
Hooper is explicit: in addition to his scientific investigations of sufferers (which he details in the text), he writes that he has examined much of the ME literature and is “fully persuaded of the organic nature of this illness and the folly and cruelty of attempting to regard it otherwise”.
He explains how he came to be involved with ME and overlapping conditions, and how he discovered “new and disturbing areas of suffering, abandonment by conventional medicine, and heroic persistence in mutual support and the search for understanding, diagnosis, treatment and hope for the future”.
There are 14 sections, with the Introduction covering not only prevalence and symptomatology, but also definitions of terminology, the deception which surrounds the terminology and classification of the disorder, psychiatrists who are committed to theories of somatisation, and various National Reports on the disorder. In discussing the UK CMO’s Report of January 2002, Hooper points out that it offered only psychological techniques of cognitive behavioural therapy and graded exercise as the preferred “treatments” and he states “Much evidence was ignored in reaching these conclusions”. He is similarly unenthusiastic about the draft document of 17th December 2002 from the MRC Research Advisory Group on CFS/ME and he quotes the searing comments of world experts who pointed out that the Royal Australasian College of Physicians’ Guidelines (upon which the MRC relies heavily) were flawed, biased, inaccurate and based on personal belief as opposed to evidence-based medicine, inadequate and potentially damaging. Hooper notes that despite all the published research which demonstrates an organic basis for these overlapping disorders, the situation in the UK remains one of denial and refusal to face all the evidence.
The main thrust of the publication is a detailed explanation of the neuroendocrine – immune paradigm and the interactive web of biochemical / physiological deficits found in ME in both adults and children, and in related disorders. Hooper also identifies various investigations, including more specialised tests than basic screening, which are of major importance in diagnosis, together with treatment protocols that have a realistic prospect of success, including the removal of casomorphins (present in milk) and gliadomorphins (present in wheat).
Hooper explains how normally, the cells of important membrane barriers that line not only the gut and the lungs but which provide the all-important blood-brain barrier have tight cell junctions that prevent many compounds from crossing these membranes, but that some chemicals are known to open these tight cell junctions, allowing free transport into the previously protected areas of what ought to be excluded compounds.
When the gut wall has increased permeability, the opioid peptides (casomorphin and gliadomorphin) which would normally be excluded are absorbed into the blood stream, giving rise to diffuse symptomatology and systemic dysfunction. Inflammation of the gut is common among ME patients, as are allergic reactions to foods including gluten. The compromised gut facilitates the development of a gut dysbiosis which in turn can give rise to autoimmune diseases, with very significant and chronic damage to health.
Hooper and his team have found that a test they were using in the Autism Unit at Sunderland (the IAG test, which stands for trans-indol-3-ylacroylglycine, a urinary metabolite of the essential amino acid tryptophan) was highly positive in Gulf War veterans. This led to the testing of those with ME and those with organophosphate poisoning, including other chemically poisoned people; in nearly every case, high levels of IAG appeared in their urine.
For this to be happening means a dysfunctional gut and sufferers from these overlapping conditions show evidence of a “leaky gut”, ie. an increased permeability of the gut wall due to damaged membranes. Hooper explains very clearly how this happens in people who are described by certain psychiatrists as exhibiting “MUPS” (“Multiple unexplained physical symptoms”) and he shows that their multitude of symptoms are not “unexplained” at all and that they are entirely organic in origin.
Hooper explains that he has been deeply impressed by the dedication, expertise and humanity of the people who have cared for and supported those with ME, some of whom have worked in the field of medical research despite having ME themselves. He makes special mention of Dr Vance Spence who, with Professor Jill Belch and Drs Faisel Khan and Gwen Kennedy, is part of a major research group at the Vascular Diseases Research Unit at the University of Dundee. The Dundee group has carried out a large research study involving ME patients, organophosphate farmers and Gulf War Veterans. Together with Dr Neil Abbot, Director of Operations at the Perth – based national charity MERGE (ME research group, whose website can be found at www.meresearch.org.uk ) they provide rigorous clinical and scientific research that addresses these overlapping conditions.
Spence has identified very extensive damage to the endothelium which lines all blood vessels: it was found to be swollen and stiffened as a result of severe damage: damage of this kind would compromise the blood supply to the deep capillary beds in all tissues, including nerve cells. This is an important and novel finding that provides new insights into the organic aetiology of ME. These findings are quite distinctive and very different to the damage found in either Gulf War Veterans or the OP poisoned farmers. Hooper stresses it is important to note that for these overlapping syndromes, there are objective tests that can uniquely characterize the related but individual syndromes. (Taken from the 25% Group website)
SHORT REVIEW OF NEW PUBLICATIONS BY Professor Malcolm Hooper, 4th April 2003
Malcolm Hooper and Margaret Williams ask Peter White some questions, 31st July 2004 View