NICE Cuts One Click Document
The ONE CLICK Group
06 October 2007
Has your Expert Patient work been cut by NICE without your agreement and permission?
Do you think that NICE has unethically medically and politically manipulated these Guidelines to benefit the psychiatric lobby to the tune of £300m are rising?
NICE Cuts One Click Document
Key Words: Ethics, Research Misconduct, Political and Medical Manipulation, Viral and Bacterial Testing, Lyme Borreliosis, Sue O’Connell, Unfair Representation, Improper Procedures, Scientific Fraudulence, ME/CFS Charities, Judicial Review.
After 43 tick tock legal days with many international incentives to act, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) has finally bitten the bullet and given a bloody, high forceps delivery birth to a bastardised and censored version of the One Click Stakeholder document with which NICE has had such evidenced difficulty for the last eleven months.
In its response to Stakeholder One Click that had to be prised out of NICE with the legal equivalent of red hot pliers, the health quango has insisted in placing its response to One Click on its dreaded Comments Proforma (http://tinyurl.com/2r77z4).
This purposefully serves to confuse and makes the perusal of any Stakeholder work published by NICE problematic to find and difficult to read. NICE and the Department of Health rely on this difficulty with forms purposefully designed for poor ease of use for controversial procedures.
The evidence shows that NICE has elected to expunge the sum of some ten typewritten pages – thousands and thousands of words – from the One Stakeholder Click document, produced by formal due process and crafted with care involving the endeavours of so many.
The work of the Expert Patients has been cut by NICE without their permission and agreement. One Click will shortly be addressing the issue of just how much British taxpayer’s money has been spent on legal bills by NICE to deliver this swingeing form of politically orchestrated medical suppression.
Scanning down what NICE has tried to censor from this document, the two constantly removed words that jump out at you from the pages are ‘ethics’ and ‘unethical’. It is clear that these are the words that NICE cannot bear to see in print in relation to the activities of the Psychiatric Lobby and itself towards ME/CFS labelled patients in Britain.
It is fascinating to see with the evidence to hand, what NICE considers to be such a threat in this One Click document and what it has tried to expunge from the public record, together with its lawyers.
We summarise briefly the issues that NICE is at such pains to attempt to wipe from the collective:
* Fair and proper representation for ME/CFS labelled patients has not occurred throughout the development of these Guidelines. NICE and the Department of Health have together unethically politically and medically manipulated the composition of the Guidelines Development Group (GDG) such that at least two-thirds of the selected members had exhibited overt psychiatric bias by word, deed and in print prior to joining.
* Charges of research misconduct by Bagnall et al in the production of the York Systematic Review.
* Unethical procedures in relation to the activities of the Psychiatric Lobby headed by Messrs. Wessely, White, Sharpe, Garralda, Chalder et al and another of their members recently shot to high office, Leszek Borysiewicz (http://tinyurl.com/2xasur), the new CEO of the UK Medical Research Council.
* As ever, the viral and bacterial testing so badly needed for patients remains an enormous problem for NICE. This occurs whilst the quango thoroughly endorses and exclusively recommends a minimum £300m British taxpayer spend on psychiatric treatments that at best do not work and a worst, have placed ME/CFS labelled patients in wheelchairs for life.
Health Advocacy watchers will be infuriated to learn that when One Click challenged NICE that it was putting patients’ lives at risk through inadequate viral and bacterial testing, the knee jerk NICE response was to severely downplay the evidenced links between ME/CFS and LymeBorreliosis.
NICE responds to One Click by maintaining that only around 600 cases of Borreliosis are diagnosed annually in the UK and of those, only TWO have neurological symptoms. Really? See NICE Formal Responses – One Click Document (http://tinyurl.com/2r77z4), pages 12 and 13.
The NICE protestations on this issue are clearly designed to prop up Sue O’Connell from the patient notorious Southampton Lab. According to the New England Journal of Medicine (http://tinyurl.com/2hj7lv), O’Connell is currently cutting a swathe through the UK criminal courts, providing evidence as yet another of those vested interests compromised ‘expert witness’ nice little earners.
Constant publication and reference to the evidenced links between Lyme Borreliosis and the ME/CFS label seem to discomfit the Department of Health, NICE and the UK ME/CFS charities mightily at all times.
* Scientific fraudulence of the PACE and FINE psychiatric clinical trials set to squander over £11.1m of British taxpayer’s money to benefit the psychiatrists exclusively. In the CFS/ME NICE Guidelines, this figure on the psychosocial treatments is set to jump to the tune of £300m.
* Patient Case Histories. It is deeply shocking that the Patient Case Histories have been expunged by NICE. It should be noted that despite formal copy approval permissions provided to NICE during legal exchanges, STILL NICE has refused to hear the voice of the patient.
The above is a small summary of the issues that NICE has attempted to cut and expunge from the One Click document with the help of its lawyers.
There is much more that is covered in the NICE response. From Malcolm Hooper to Horace Reid whom NICE label as ‘confused’, NICE does its psychiatric lobby driven best to ignore and cast doubt on all the biomedical evidence presented. It can presumably do no other after the research misconduct performed during the York Systematic Review.
The neurological ME/CFS label has long been considered by government as a form of mental deviance, easily cured by Cognitive Behavioural Therapy and Graded Exercise Therapy. The NICE Guidelines go a considerable way to reinforcing this contention, put forward as they have been by a Guidelines Development Group, two thirds of whom had expressed psychiatric bias by word, deed and in print prior to joining the GDG.
A Judicial Review (http://tinyurl.com/yw7pu2) is the way in which the courts supervise government ministers and departments, industry regulators, local authorities and other public bodies to ensure that they act lawfully and fairly. The principles of judicial review are based on case law which is continually being developed by the courts. It is, therefore, a very flexible area of the law that tends to reflect changes in society.
It is entirely shocking to an ever dwindling population of members and associates – and yet absolutely self-evident and par for the course for the majority – that NONE of the so called UK ME/CFS ‘charities’ (aka income generating projects for the boyz) have to date publicly announced any intention to consult solicitors to explore challenging the NICE Guidelines by Judicial Review. This will go down as one of the blackest marks in their *collectively* appalling histories and is unlikely to be forgotten by anyone. To these charities, ‘unfit for purpose’ are mere words that they use, deliberately never to be backed by any concrete action.
It is absolutely clear that in relation to the development of these CFS/ME Guidelines, NICE has acted beyond its powers in a manifestly unreasonable manner. Applied to the human rights context, the Wednesbury unreasonable principles dictate that where fundamental rights are being restricted, the state agency actor must show an important competing interest to justify the restriction.
One Click will be announcing next steps in due course. The bundle grows larger and more explicitly defined with every passing day.
The One Click Group
For Further Information:
The devil with ME/CFS is always in the detail. Get the knowledge to make informed decisions.
> > > Read:
1. The One Click Group Response – NICE Guidelines.
New, updated to include the draconian NICE editing of the political document that has caused such controversy.
2. NICE Formal Responses – One Click Document.
This provides the NICE responses to some of the points made by Stakeholder One Click by the purposefully obfuscatory and derided Proforma Comment.
3. NICE Cuts One Click.
This document houses all the some ten pages and thousand of Expert Patient words cut by NICE and its lawyers.
Happy reading to all.
This information is available on THE ONE CLICK Group website