The 'pain catastrophizing' concept seems to be quite feasible to prove or disprove these days. I may be wrong, but I've got the impression, in general, that these days we have at least a half-decent handle on measurements of the level of pain experienced, using brain scans. So ME patients could potentially be compared to other groups on a questionnaire indicating the pain they subjectively experience, as compared with what the scan says. If what they say about their pain is consistently more extreme than what their brain scan says, and more so than other groups, then pain catastrophizing in ME patients would be proven. If the people who coined the phrase 'pain catastrophizing' were scientists, they would attempt to disprove their hypothesis with a rigorous test of their hypothesis, similar to what I've suggested. If they failed to disprove it, they could then begin using the phrase 'pain catastrophizing' with evidence to back them up. Does anyone know whether they have done this? Or are they not scientists? If they aren't, then it would be nice if a scientist would come along and disprove their insulting, demeaning, abusive babble. Perhaps they are more into 'evidence-based' than 'science'. A lot of evidence-based stuff is coming in at my workplace these days. Where I've been involved in it, the concept of 'evidence' typically amounts to me making the claim, in writing, that I have done something. I wonder whether this is the same standard of evidence that people who talk about 'pain catastrophizing' are using?