We refer to a paper titled “Concerns about the forthcoming 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” dated 1st May 2001, written by Sally Montague and Malcolm Hooper, which makes a number of wild and unsupportable accusations about the charity HealthWatch.

The following statements, made in the report referenced, are inaccurate and must be withdrawn. Text in italics is copied from the report verbatim.

From Page 4:

We find it difficult to overcome our concern about the fact that the most influential members of the CMO’s Working Group are all members of Healthwatch; Healthwatch is funded by drug companies and in its literature, its clearly-stated aims are to promote the use of pharmacological interventions and to oppose “Diagnoses…that may encourage unnecessary treatment for non-existent diseases”. Specifically, Healthwatch members are opposed to the use of non-pharmacological interventions such as homoeopathy, acupuncture, dietary modulation or vitamin supplementation and they are vociferously opposed to all practitioners of alternative or complementary medicine. Membership of Healthwatch is open only to those who promote the pharmacological industry (9). Notably, the Medical Adviser to the UK ME Association (Dr Charles Shepherd) is a member of Healthwatch, and the involvement of both Professor Anthony Pinching (Deputy Chair of the CMO’s Working Group) and Professor Simon Wessely (a very influential member of the Reference Group to the CMO’s Working Group) has long been known. (9) Wessely has had connections with Healthwatch since its inception in 1989 (9) and he unceasingly promotes his view that ME is a non-existent disease and that CFS is a psychiatric disorder which is amenable to antidepressants and psychotherapy.

1. HealthWatch is funded in the main by membership subscriptions. In the (distant) past, small sums have been received from Pharmaceutical Companies; these have always been freely given and have never been followed by any canvassing. Donations and their source can be proved from our audited accounts, which are made public each year at our AGM. They are generally for small sums and come from members of the committee or other individuals. A recent exception is a £5,000 donation from ISFE towards the running of our Newsletter. ISFE is a small charity based in Switzerland which supports teaching and research in human nutrition.
   
2. HealthWatch has issued a limited number of Position Papers which contain views endorsed by the committee; these are all posted on our website where they can be checked by anyone. We have looked at all these and cannot find the phrase represented as if a quotation: “Diagnoses…that may encourage unnecessary treatment for non-existent diseases”. We have a position paper on screening, but this addresses screening for conditions such as cancer in healthy populations and does not contain this phrase. It has not been possible to review every article in the Newsletter, but these do not represent HealthWatch opinions, but those of the writers and are subject to peer comment. We encourage debate and permit anyone with a view that differs from that expressed in an article to comment.
   
3. Some of our members are opposed to various methods of treatment and openly debate these issues in the Newsletter under their own names. The Newsletter encourages such debate and will publish comments and views from anyone, member or non-member. This process of open scientific debate we recommend to the writers of the article under discussion.
   
4. Membership of HealthWatch is open to anyone who agrees with our constitutional aims, published on the reverse of our Membership renewal, as follows:

THE AIMS OF HEALTHWATCH to which you subscribe by signing this renewal are:

The advancement for the public benefit of medical knowledge, training and care in all its branches and, in particular, the development of good practices in the assessment and testing of treatments and the conduct of clinical trials generally and the promotion of high standards of health care by practitioners.

In brief:

HealthWatch - for treatment that works

5. Dr Charles Shepherd and Professor Simon Wessely are members of HealthWatch; Professor Anthony Pinching is not.

We find it extraordinary that membership of an open, registered charity should be seen by the writers of the article under discussion as meaningful in any way. We are not a society with secret aims and only try to influence people by open and rational discussion. Again, we recommend this to the writers.

From page 10:

Clearly, such findings might be unpalatable to members of Healthwatch and to the chemical and pharmacological giants whose interests Healthwatch was set up to serve.

HealthWatch is a completely independent organisation, registered as a charity. It was set up by a small group of individuals who shared the aims quoted above.

11th July 2001.
Michael E Allen
HealthWatch Press Officer