Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by V99, Jul 28, 2010.
And the CAA's thoughts on all this would be????
I think I'm feeling a little bi-polar right now, as in, I don't know whether to laugh at this article or to be depressed. I guess either reaction would be labeled a personality disorder, so I choooooooose........ a bit of laughter and a bit more of Eeeeek!
I was wondering the same thing, so I posted a link to this thread on their facebook page.....will have to see if they respond.
We might all be nutters but thankfully we're not dishonest
When you actually read this garbage, you find that it has very little substance and will hopefully backfire on the authors. :Retro mad:
So many good quotes already posted by peeps on here.
It's good to see that such "disturbed" and patently "irrational" people can be quite so beautifully objective.
actually bipolar disorder is "only" a mood disorder (an axis I disorder).....personality disorders are axis II disorders, which are considered worse and basically pretty much entrenched (very difficult to treat and/or change....they are the ones viewed as really and truly crazy by those who want to really stigmatize)
.....no the CDC was not satisfied with trying to discredit us as having garden variety mental disorders - they wanted to go for the really big guns, bc no way would anyone actually listen to anyone with something so major as a personality disorder (perhaps this is a sign that they are feeling the pressure of having backed themselves into a corner.....the only way out is to really annihilate any credibility we might have whatsoever
"We might all be nutters but thankfully we're not dishonest "
for some reason I find the term "nutter" to be highly amusing.....not sure if the UK peeps see it that way, or not......but maybe the fact that I think that is funny is proof that I am truly a nutter ; )
The acid test
If you find it amusing then :
a) it proves that you have a sense of humour
b) it's proof perfect that you are not mad.
Attack is the best form of defense?
*slow claps for Urs M. Natera, James F. Jonesa, Jin-Mann S. Lina, Elizabeth Maloneya, William C. Reeves and Christine Heimb*
I just KNEW that when Reeves went to the Shrink Side he would be more dangerous
Far more Dangerous to us over there than in the CDC/CFS program - and apparently I was correct. I figured he would find a way to call us nuts using this group and that sociopath did.
William Reeves is a sociopath. I would love to see this whole group get tested with those stupid tests. I would bet my house that they all show really screwed up personalities! Most shrinks are nuts, save a few who are actually in the field to be helpful. The rest are in it to understand their own mental/emotional problems and are the biggest nuts in society. Never fails. Shrinks freak me out - between their nutjob personalities and their odd hubris.
This really enrages me. How dare they? Reeves just had to get one last shot in before we took that sociopath down. And down he's going to come. No Federal pension for you Bill by the time we are done with you. What will you live on since you won't get SSA due to that Federal employment?
The only personality trait that I see in CFIDS/ME people more commonly is the driven personality. I have yet to see a lazy CFIDS/ME person. I've only seen the Type A's. Oh, and the pretty darn bright as well.
Thinking about the CFIDS/ME sick and what the personalities are that I have seen time and again - you guys are right. This IS going to be more garbage on top of the CDC's head. It's only going to make them look all the more stupid.
And now the paranoid, schizoid, avoidant, obsessive-compulsive and depressive personality disordered chick here has calmed down.
MS versus CFS on the NEO-FFI - neurotism and depression - BTDT
Been There! - Done That (only without the bias)!
So how new and how balanced is the recent article by the CDC and Reeves? Turns out that something very similar was done in 2003 but this preceding article made the effort to actually include a comparison group of MS patients, apparently thinking that just maybe the disease process might impact response patterns on the NEO-FFI.
In the 2003 article, it turned out that contrary to the authors expectations, the CFS patients fared surprisingly well compared to the MS patients:
So Neurotisism on the NEO-FFI seems to be linked to depression and the CDC CFS criteria selects for patients with depression and excludes patients with immune and neuological disorders.
To me, the most striking difference is the tone between a study that was taking an honest look at CFS and personality and a study that is dripping with confirmation bias. I suspect that these days it is getting very loud in the echo chamber that is Reeves and the CDC.
Here is the full reference and abstract to for the 2003 CFS v. MS study:
Now for the revelation of the intellectually dishonest bit. It turns out that the CDC and Reeves were well aware of the above study. The CDC actually cites it in this 2010 article:
Unfortunately, the CDC's reference conveniently leaves out any mention of the MS group and it misrepresents that Taillefera et. al. concluded chronic illness and "the perception that others are not taking their illness seriously" were the primary factors thought to account for differences between the CFS, MS and control groups on the NEO-FFI.
Anyone care to hazard a guess as to why the CDC would leave out the bit about how not being taken seriously is damaging in itself?
Don't think for a moment that the CDC is benign!
Whoa! Slow down please! This is going too fast for me and my cognitive dysfunction....
Isn't the group studied here CDC's "CFS" patients -- that phonecalls-collected group that doesn't have neuro-immune symptoms or signs of infection, etc, etc? If they're low-functioning without having our illness, might they not have a disproportionate number of mental illnesses?
Even so, the CDC seems to be making up their psychology as they go along, as others have pointed out. Since when is introversion a negative personality trait? WTH is "depressive personality disorder"?
And I had to laugh at noncompliant with treatment.
This whole thing makes no sense.
Was it Leonard Jason?
LAST SENTENCE: "Since maladaptive personality is not specific to CFS, it might be associated with illness per se rather than with a specific condition."
So why go through the whole spiel about how crazy CFIDS people are if the final sentence refutes the whole rest of the paper??? Did I read this sentence correctly? Is this some sort of CYA just in case sentence?
These people are so crazy it scares me. And they are allowed to walk the streets with normal people....
Just by coincidence, the BBC has an article today about arguments over DSM-V. I suspect we are at a watershed for theories of psychogenic illness. It is just barely possible someone may notice this field is largely free of falsifiable theories of etiology.
Don't mistake them as crazy. This is straight slander parading as science -with a protection clause at the end. Idiotic.
There's always the implication that introversion is a defect. It's just something you've to get used to if you're so disposed and live in the western world. I have no doubt this disease can push one into compulsive thinking and heavy introversion, as we deal with excitotoxicity; external stimuli can become overwhelming. Now imagine calling someone afflicted with autism introverted and self absorbed.
I can't remember the last time I refused adequate treatment. And what exactly are they referring to here, thorazine?
I'd love to hear Dr. Yes's reaction to this one. Is there a doctor in the house?
I'm with muffin on this. That last sentence virtually negates any serious relevance to CFS. (Assuming their 'findings' are in fact accurate, of course, a very big if, given other studies have failed to find any link with personality type, let alone personality disorder. Not to mention that the whole notion 'personality disorder' itself is a contentious issue at the best of times within psych, with a lot of disagreement on what it means and how to diagnose and deal with it.)
Just more of the Kafkaesque nonsense brought to you by ReevesCo.
That it's a load of crap and has nothing to do with CFS or CFS patients. Although the staff would phrase that much better than I did. And CBS hit the killing blow with the references to the 2003 study comparing CFS and MS.
Well said Jennie! I could not have put it better myself.
And keep in mind that the 2003 study references three other studies of which the CDC should have been aware: Two showing no difference between MS and CFS and one showing elevated values for patients with chronic illness. This is getting written up and sent to the editors of Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics and other interested/responsible parties.
Exactly. Why write the paper at all? The title implies that personality disorders exist in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The second sentence states "Personality may be a risk factor for CFS..." The final sentence implies that "maladaptive personality" exists in CFS, but is not in any way an identifying feature and that "illness" (meaning any illness?) is associated with "maladaptive personality".
I'm trying to sort out this weasel-wordiness....
Are they saying that illness, just illness, is associated with "maladaptive personality"? Are cancer, MS, flu, HIV, and/or colds associated with "maladaptive personality"? Doesn't this sound a bit like "Sick people are a pain in the @$$"?
Are they saying that CFS patients have "maladaptive personality", but so do many other ill people? If so, what's the news about CFS --that we're part of the "ill" population?
Please, someone with expertise in word-crafting, explain the connection of these parts to the whole. And if you could explain the actual point -- what it is we're supposed to take away from this paper, I would greatly appreciate your effort.
"Personality Features and Personality Disorders in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Population-Based Study"
First sentences of abstract:
"Background: Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) presents unique diagnostic and management challenges. Personality may be a risk factor for CFS and may contribute to the maintenance of the illness."
Last sentence of abstract:
"Since maladaptive personality is not specific to CFS, it might be associated with illness per se rather than with a specific condition."
BTW, who published this BS?
Oh, I forgot to ask:
WTF is ISF? All I saw was ISF (insufficient fatigue). Insufficient fatigue? Really? What does that mean? It sounds like something I might want.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.