Related to, and following on from, a 2009 Chalder study that was discussed here: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...rental-expectations-of-their-childs-iq.22629/ The prospective association between childhood cognitive ability and somatic symptoms and syndromes in adulthood: the 1958 British birth cohort Eva M Kingma1, Judith G M Rosmalen1, Peter D White2, Stephen A Stansfeld2, Charlotte Clark2 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24022814 So they thought less bright children would be more likely to end up with CFS, and found: I wonder if they'd consider a similarly sized finding to be just chance if it had supported their hypothesis? I'm not sure I remember having ever read a paper where a significant finding in support of the researchers hypothesis was suggested to be a matter of chance. Their summary of the paper: Paper was generally tedious, trying to avoid saying 'we don't know what we're talking about, but have lumped together loads of patients under pointless labels to help us sound like experts... here are some weak associations that we can spin a story from'. 'The aetiology of... oh, it's all a load of bollocks. Who do we think we're kidding?'