Response to Ian BALMER -RSM

[Guest guest]

From: Gurli Bagnall

Response to Ian BALMER

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

ian.balmer@...

Sunday, 20 April, 2008.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Ian Balmer, CE of the Royal Society of Medicine,

responded to Dr. Greensmith's letter in which

he criticized the Societys " supposed bias " of a

forthcoming conference on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome

(CFS). Given the circumstances, I presume Mr.

Balmer is referring to Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (ME)

specifically, and not the unrelated conditions which

fall willy-nilly under the umbrella title of CFS.

Those with a knowledge of the recent history of ME

will be aware that the use of the terms CFS/ME or

ME/CFS are offensive but they are a shade more

realistic than CFS on its own. CFS as a title, not only

gives offence, but is a clear demonstration of that

bias to which Mr. Balmer referred.

Mr. Balmer makes a point of explaining that RSM

conferences are aimed at various audiences and this

one, is intended for professionals only, the agenda

being: " to refect its diagnosis and treatment, as

outlined in the NICE guidelines. "

It has not gone unnoticed in the ME community that

conferences for patients with the same agenda as

conferences for the profession, present a very

different point of view. The patient conference will

be told that (to quote Mr. Balmer) CFS is a

debilitating and distressing condition. He seems

unaware that a number of the listed speakers have

already made their opinions on the disease known

at other " professional " conferences or in writing for

publications within the insurance industry. In most

instances, those views have been untruthful and

malign the characters and personalities of those who

suffer ME.

It is of concern that Mr. Balmer seems (yet again)

unaware that there is an association between the

insurance industry and some of his speakers. Indeed

it is surprising just how uninformed and out of touch

he is.

Terms such as NICE and " well-grounded evidence

based medicine " sound good but to those who have

suffered the effects of preventable medical error,

they are simply bad jokes. Where ME is concerned,

patients and carers know first hand the dangers they

face when facts are distorted; when ethics are

disregarded; when the profession lies outright or by

omission, and places prejudiced opinion ahead of

genuine scientific findings.

I would ask Mr. Balmer how he can be a moving force

in this sort of conference when he seems totally

unaware that to date, funding for research into ME

has been awarded almost entirely to the psychiatric

branch of medicine and that their " treatment " is all

that is on offer. They have had their say for too

many years and having failed abysmally, surely it is

time to listen to others.

Patients and their carers have lost all faith in the

health system. The fault lies with the medical

profession. With the up-coming conference, Mr

Balmer has the opportunity to make this a level

playing field, but will he take it?

Judging by his letter to Dr. Greensmith (and to

borrow someone else's quotation), I suspect he

subscribes to the view that those who PREY

together, stay together.

Gurli Bagnall