Our Final Ramsay Letter To Be Made Public

Dated 11th September 1987.

"Dear Edith,

I feel I ought to let you know about what is happening in the M.E. field.

I have had occasion to disagree with some of Professor Mowbray's statements and have told him so. James Mowbray is a very delightful colleague but he is no clinician. Some of his talks on radio terrify me.

He got the figures about the outbreak in the Royal Free Hospital completely reversed and said there were 92 genuine cases the remaining 200 being of hysterical origin. The Sunday Express were here today taking photographs of me for an article which is soon to appear in their paper. 

I could not very well refuse since they came at the express wish of the Chairman of the Trustees. I expect James Mowbray has had a lot to do with whatever article has been written so I want it to be known that it has not had my blessing.

However there are two bright spots to record. One of the research team of which Professor Mowbray is the chairman is Professor Banatvala of St. Thomas's. He has a very alert brain and will not pass anything with which he disagrees and I am told that he has already refused to put his name to an article which will shortly be published in the Lancet regarding the research to date.

The second is that I have been approached by Christine Doyle medical correspondent of the Daily Telegraph and she wants to publish an interview which she is going to have with me at the beginning of November in which I can give my views at length. This will be published in the Daily Telegraph of Nov. 19th which will be my 86th birthday.

A third encouraging point is that Dr. Gordon Parish attended the symposium on M.E. held in Atlanta in May. He brought back very encouraging news about the research going on.

We already knew about the outbreaks of 'prolonged and atypical illnesses' following infection with Epstein-Barr virus reported in the American press in 1982 and 1985. This has been followed by an outbreak in Lake Tahoe. These outbreaks are all 'spot-on' M.E.

An enormous amount of information hs (sic) accruing from these and i t may well be that the American researchers will outstrip ours in the elucidation of the 'persistent virus '

But what of it? Gordon tells us that scientists from other disciplines than medicine are now interested in the problem. Incidentally no one at Atlanta had ever heard of McEvedy 

and Beard and when Gordon told some of them what we had been up against the remark was 'they must be loony'

I fully expected P.K. Thomas to bring up the point about SMON disease being caused by the drug 'clioquehol' We could easily have pointed out that most of the victims of SMON virus had not had that drug and nurses who nursed sufferers from SMON disease developed significant antibody titres to the virus.

I discussed the matter with Gordon Parish and we agreed that nothing was to be gained by replying to P.K.Thomas's letter in the Lancet

He will probably never agree that M.E. is an organic entity even when it has been proved up to the hilt.

So I am really quite satisfied with the position. It is just a matter of patience. I was astounded

by a paper in the Australian press by a young doctor, Garnet Simpson.

He has been discovering M.E. in a suburb of Sydney and his account is almost word for word what I wrote nearly 30 years ago. He put the problem to a consultant physician whose opinion he values. This colleague said there was no way in which the syndrome complied with the 'scientific method' of enquiry and must be regarded as 'phoney' Simpson made the very cogent remark 'Here is a man who is totally dedicated to, and loyal to, the 'scientific method' but he lacks the intuitive percpetion' (sic) to cope with an entirely new phenomenon.'

I never thought I would see that said by a member of our profession but he so right. It is only when you use your intuitive mind that you can recognise the genuine nature of an M.E. sufferer.

With best wishes,

Yours sincerely Melvin."