rickvank and 'major development'

Discussion in 'Fibromyalgia Main Forum' started by quilp, Feb 2, 2009.

  1. quilp

    quilp New Member

    Further to your thread I have emailed Dr Howard with a view to elaborating on his findings, with particular reference to the lack of media coverage in respect of this 'breakthrough' Although he says he's received a 'lot of emails' there has been absolutely no coverage of this story whatsoever over here in the UK.
    Are you still confident in your assertion that this really is a 'major development' ? I have to say, I have my reservations; perhaps this will turn out to be one of a litany of false dawns to rise and yet fall, and with it, the hopes of millions.

    Kind regards Mark
  2. richvank

    richvank New Member

    Hi, Mark.

    Yes, I will stand by my characterization of this as a major development. I have been interacting with Drs. Myhill and Howard for some years, and am familiar with the history of this work. Dr. Myhill and I have written a draft of a paper reviewing the evidence in the published literature for the presence of mitochondrial dysfunction in CFS. It has over 120 references. We hope to get it published in a journal.

    To me, it has seemed obvious for almost all of the 13 years that I have been studying CFS that with profound physical fatigue being a hallmark symptom of this disorder, the mitochondria had to be involved, since they produce the ATP that powers the muscles. Dr. Myhill has felt the same way for many years, but there was no test available to test this belief directly. Dr. Howard developed such a test, and now we have the direct evidence from their work, together with a variety of supporting indirect evidence from the literature. I might add that Dr. Paul Cheney and Professor Martin Pall in the U.S. are two other prominent CFS researchers who have believed for a long time that the mitochondria were involved in CFS, though their ideas about why the mitochondria become dysfunctional are different from mine.

    I don't know what to suggest as the reason for the lack of news coverage of this development in the UK. My impression is that the medical establishment in the UK seems to be dominated by the psychiatric paradigm for the pathogenesis of CFS. If those who control news coverage in the UK are taking their guidance from "experts" in the medical establishment, I think it would be easy to understand why there hasn't been coverage of this breakthrough work. We have a somewhat similar situation in the U.S., though perhaps not as severe.

    As I've written before, the important thing is to determine why the mitos are dysfunctional in CFS so that the root cause can be dealt with. In my opinion, the original cause of the mito dysfunction in CFS is a drop in the concentration of glutathione in the mitochondria, and that the way to correct this is to lift the block in the methylation cycle, which lies upstream in the sulfur metabolism from the synthesis of glutathione. We have direct lab evidence for this now, which we plan to present at the IACFS/ME conference in Reno, Nevada, USA, in March. Prof. Norman Booth will be presenting the Myhill et al work at the same conference. Whether these efforts will receive news coverage after the conference, I can't say. Again, the news people tend to rely on certain "experts" for guidance as to what is significant. It isn't always easy to get these "experts" interested in something new, especially if it challenges some of their older ideas, or makes their own work seem less relevant, or if it goes beyond their particular specialties so that they are not confident in their ability to judge its validity. In the latter case, they often conclude that the safest action is to say nothing, which is what they do.

    I guess that what I'm saying is that when it comes to judging which developments are real breakthoughs, the popular press is not the best place to look. But don't lose hope. The truth eventually does prevail. My hope is that in this case, it will be sooner rather than later!

    Best regards,

    [This Message was Edited on 02/02/2009]
  3. quilp

    quilp New Member

    The media like nothing more than indulging in controversy; it's the oil that lubricates a frenzy amongst the unsuspecting masses; the media can be both capricious and judicious in the brevity of an editor's fleeting flirtation with the truth. Facts float freely in a swamp of aphorisms and calumny, whilst any vestiges of justice are frequently left to drown.

    I wonder how many people like me, whilst becoming so ill, have become so cynical, so bitter, so soon ? I once laboured under the misapprenhension that journalists were there to report on the basis of overwhelming evidence, with logic, reasoning, insight, being just a few of the tenets of their profession.

    Now on the eve of what seem like major developments cascading down the hills around them, I wonder.......

    kind regards Mark

  4. dannybex

    dannybex Member

    We must remember that 'the media' relies on the pharmaceutical companies for a great deal of their advertising support via the commercials run during almost every newscast.

    That alone explains why research and advances like this will likely never be reported, especially as a 'major development' by the major media outlets. They rely almost solely on "experts" who will tout psychiatry (which often means drugs) and/or just plain drugs for almost any illness.

    It also explains the clear and obvious bias against nutrition and/or nutritional supplements on these programs -- like those that Rich and others have shown help unblock this methylation problem.

    my two pennies,