Response to Magical Medicine from Sir Michael Rawlins, Chairman of NICE
From: Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci
National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
71 High Holborn
To: Professor Malcolm Hooper
2 Nursery Close
02 March 2010
Thank you for your letter and for enclosing "Magical Medicine: How to Make Disease Disappear".
You are obviously aware that NICE has, in the recent past, been involved in defending an action for Judicial Review over the ME/CFS guideline we published a couple of years ago. Although judge found in favour of the Institute the legal costs were considerable. I am afraid, therefore, that I am not prepared to enter into any correspondence on this matter.
I am returning your document.
Professor Sir Michael Rawlins FMedSci
This is Professor Malcolm Hooper's reply to Sir Michael Rawlins' unscientific refusal (above) to address the biomedical evidence that exists about ME/CFS -
From Malcolm Hooper Ph.D.,B.Pharm.,C.Chem.,MRIC
Emeritus Professor of Medicinal Chemistry
School of Sciences
University of Sunderland
Phone 0191 515 2000 0191 515 2000
FAX 0191 515 2502
Public Relations Office 0191 515 2691 0191 515 2691
Chief Scientific Adviser to the Gulf Veterans' Association
President: the National Gulf War Veterans and Families Association, NGVFA, (2002)
Web site http://osiris.sunderland.ac.uk/autism
05 March 2010
Dear Sir Michael,
Thank you for your letter and the returned copy of Magical Medicine which I found very disappointing and disconcerting.
To be faced, yet again, with the denial and dismissal of the comprehensive amount of biomedical evidence about ME that has been presented in some 5000 published and peer-reviewed papers is disturbing and has sinister connotations devoid of any compassion.
Failure to consider this evidence means that any policy towards people with ME will be "built upon sand" in defiance of the basic principles of scientific inquiry and any consideration for very sick people, their families and carers.
As a fellow medical scientist I find the continuing denial and unwillingness to face the biomedical evidence both puzzling and incomprehensible.
We know Government is committed to funding research that is perceived to support policy, an attitude that has, in this case, lead to lack of scientific rigour, integrity and humanity in order to avoid developing a policy based on the biomedical evidence available in this complex and difficult area of medicine.
With best wishes