Regarding Julia Newton's research and her "spectrum of fatigue", you might be interested to see this...
http://www.ncl.ac.uk/icm/research/publication/71614
Home orthostatic training in chronic fatigue syndrome - a randomized, placebo-controlled feasibility study 2010
Thirty-eight patients with CFS (Fukuda Criteria) were randomly allocated to daily tilt training ... for 6 months. ... Two patients (one from each arm) withdrew from the study. Fourteen patients in each group complied completely or partially, and patients found the training manageable and achievable. ... There was no significant difference in fatigue between groups at 4 weeks ... but there was a trend towards improvement in fatigue at 6 months. Compliers had lower fatigue compared to non-compliers.
HOT is well tolerated and generally complied with. [...] An adequately powered study including strategies to enhance compliance is warranted.
Right, so exertional intolerance is all due to NMH -- we obviously knew that anyway. Furthermore, NMH is all or mainly due to faulty conditioning, ie deconditioning, deconditioned standing. Finally, increased daily orthostasis for 6 months -- of course it was obvious this was feasible.
Well, that's that sorted then.
What do you mean, you're not happy?
Here's the full text...
://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2362.2009.02225.x/full
Subjects were excluded if ... inability to stand for up to 40 min due to muscular or neurological disorders
I don't know anyone with genuine ME/CFIDS who could stand for 40 minutes (even if leaning against a wall) every day without rapid deterioration. And it goes without saying it's impossible and probably dangerous for pwME with cardiac dysfunction. So once again, severely affected sufferers, even moderately affected sufferers this time, are shafted.
Subjects within HOT arm were asked to stand with their upper back against a wall and their heels approximately 15 centimetres (cm) from the wall with a cushioned drop zone. They were asked to maintain this position without movement for up to 40 min or until they experienced symptoms.
Measurements included impedence cardiography but don't know if this was exactly the same technique of measurement as Cheney uses.
This just seems like more of the, "for the people who could do it it was okay". So what?
Most patients attended for appointments at weeks 1 and 4, but 10 patients were dropped out after failing to attend for the 6-month assessment, which suggests that we need to find further strategies to keep patients engaged with the therapy.
So, no suggestion that the therapy may be completely inappropriate for them, may have been making them worse?!
The 40% of misdiagnosed cases she's excluded is the tip of the iceberg... The curse of the fatigue misnomer strikes again.
If this is where Newton's "good" research is going then I for one, don't need her and don't want her and at the very best she offers me nothing. Didn't it even bother her that "patients with muscular/neuro disoders" (ie ME/CFIDS!) precluding standing were the ones most in need of help and yet the very ones she was blithely excluding? Never more has this "stuff" being researched seemed like two separate diseases.
Incidentally this also cements my suspicions around NMH being that it's no more than a fancy term for deconditioning, or at least there's nothing about it that precludes that interpretation.