Letter, Re: How to beat chronic fatigue ... by learning to hold your breath, Mail on Sunday, 23 October 2011

[Guest guest]

PERMISSION TO FORWARD AND RE-POST ON SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES, ON LINE

GROUPS AND USE IN NEWSLETTERS. PLEASE RE TWEET ON TWITTER.

The Buteyko breathing technique is the latest in a line of unproven

treatments, sold in pyramid fashion by franchise to practitioners with

no particular qualification, which claims to help, if not cure, people

with the nebulous " Chronic Fatigue Syndrome " (CFS) tag. This

heterogeneity maximises the number of potential clients for it and

ensures that one can never compare like with like results. It also hangs

on to the coat tails of M.E.(Myalgic Encephalomyelitis), which is not

the same thing as CFS at all, since M.E. exists when fatigue has been

satisfied by natural sleep or with medication. I am sceptical about

Delingpole's claims of the benefits of the Buteyko breathing

technique for any of the conditions mentioned in his promotional article

(How to beat chronic fatigue ... by learning to hold your breath, Mail

on Sunday, 23 October 2011 -

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2052234/Buteyko-breathing-technique-I-\

beat-chronic-fatigue-learning-hold-breath.html)

but especially concerned that it may raise false hopes amongst M.E.

sufferers, who may be tempted to speculate money they can ill afford.

Since has benefited from this free advertising, I would like to

ask for equally fair space and prominence for a simple experiment, which

I could arrange and over which an independent representative of your

newspaper could preside: Select at random a small number, say 10, of

people with M.E. meeting the International Consensus Criteria and, after

trying the Buteyko method, report to what extent they improve by

measurable functions, e.g. return to normal working and social life

before illness. If it is successful in more than, say, two-thirds, there

should be a larger study and, if replicated, recommended widely for M.E.

patients. If below chance, or a disappointingly low percentage, any

claims for M.E. should be withdrawn.

I have made this same suggestion for an independent test of such claims

for other alternative and radical offerings for M.E. sufferers, and will

continue to do so wherever I see them but, to date, every one has been

ignored by both the practitioners and the publication in which the

promotion appeared. I do hope that and the Mail will break the mould.

Yours sincerely

drjohngreensmith@...

Dr H Greensmith

ME Community Trust.org