A Little Poisoning Along the Road to ME/CFS
Looking at my symptoms, many of which are far less these days and some are gone, it would be easy to figure that I'd just been dealing with some heavy-duty menopausal issues.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Gynecological History in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (Reeves, et al., 2010)

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by WillowJ, Nov 29, 2010.

  1. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,579
    Likes:
    3,975
    WA, USA
    Besides the fact that Reeves is still publishing "CFS" studies... is there any significance to this? I know it applies to MDD and random fatigued and depressed people, not actual CFS patients ("a population-based study" is a tip-off to Reeves inclusion, if his name on the author list wasn't enough).

    Is this a potential shift towards interest in biomedical, or is this a "just a hysterical (notice the random womb dysfunction including pain not related to named disorder) women's disease"?

    Boneva RS, Maloney EM, Lin JM, Jones JF, Wieser F, Nater UM, Heim CM, Reeves WC. "Gynecological History in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Population-Based Case-Control Study." J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2010 Nov 20. [Epub ahead of print] PMID: 21091051

    1 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention , Atlanta, Georgia .
    Abstract

     
  2. caledonia

    caledonia

    Messages:
    3,201
    Likes:
    1,944
    Cincinnati, OH, USA
    It looks like more "hysterical" stuff still in the pipeline to me.
     
  3. paddygirl

    paddygirl Senior Member

    Messages:
    163
    Likes:
    21
    On the other hand Reeves could save a lot of time and energy and ask Judy Mikovits to explain to him the role of hormones in XMRV infection.

    While going through my denial/acceptance stage after diagnosis I always thought the high midlife female incidence was a big fat clue. I asked my Rheum (can't spell that word) was there a link with the Endometreosis and allergies I had. I didn't have the full measure of him yet and thought I was talking to someone who would be as interested as I was.

    Much later I saw an interview with Dr M in a lab saying that the balance of the hormones is implicated in the illness for women, it makes so much sense. By the way, the levels of hysterectomy in that study are huge:confused:
     
  4. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    10,595
    Likes:
    12,020
    UK
    Doesn't it seem a phenomenally high proportion of women having hysterectomy even in the control group (55%) and very early menopause, again even in the control group (46.1 years)? This doesn't sound like a random sample of the population to me; plus if the CFS criteria are vague (Reeves) the CFS group is going to include more people with any condition that could cause fatigue, including gynae conditions. I'm not convinced this study is relevant to ME/CFS.
     
  5. Min

    Min Guest

    Messages:
    1,386
    Likes:
    1,894
    UK
    it's those wandering wombs of course!
     
  6. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,757
    Likes:
    7,486
    I think a lot of these conditions can be viewed as psychological.

    Skin conditions in 'that area' - even if they're clearly visibile, and not just 'pain' are often treated rather dismissively even today, partly because there's often not much that they can do.
     
  7. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,298
    Likes:
    7,999
    They have done quite a few "biomedical" studies over the years - it's different to the UK where psychobabblers do only a token amount of that sort of stuff - it's been a much bigger percentage of the CDC's output. It's just like you say one can have no faith in the data because of how the "CFS" patients are picked. It may give us some information about the sort of people picked by their dodgy definition for CFS e.g. some women who have had hysterectomies.
     
  8. Desdinova

    Desdinova Senior Member

    Messages:
    276
    Likes:
    133
    USA
    Oh Wonderful yet another useless CDC Population-Based Case-Control Study. This is a survey similar to those previous surveys done by the CDC in Wichita, Kansas or Georgia. One that selects its CFS group based on the CDC’s flawed CFS definition criteria and flawed methodology. But then again that’s how they get the results and statistics that they want and like. Garbage in Garbage out! Just remember everyone that Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) is a complex and serious illness with no known cause or causes (after all the CDC told us so :rolleyes: ). And it appears apparently that it’s one that will be solved using flawed data along with a flawed definition criteria anytime now. Every time one of these studies comes out I want to scream.
     
  9. WillowJ

    WillowJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,579
    Likes:
    3,975
    WA, USA
    Previously, yes. Lately, the CDC's (bio)psychosocial school is almost competing with the Brits' psychosocial school. Namely, none except stress/HPA/related genes/allostatic load and that stupid sleep one that felt objective evidence of dyspnea meant patients "may suffer from sleep state misperception."
    And the one rogue study with Bristol Sorensen and Suzanne Vernon on PEM and the gene behind Sorensen's complement activation theory. :)

    But yes, the Reeves criteria doesn't select for any disease reliably, so the data is worthless for any purpose. No use for ME/CFS, no use for MDD, no use for CF, nothing.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page