• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Psychology Today Opinion piece regarding the IOM release

GracieJ

Senior Member
Messages
773
Location
Utah
That he posted again, trying to reconcile his world view with current information, leaves me wondering if he pulled his own earlier post. I think that may be the case.

Either way, I think @Iquitos has it right. We need to challenge viewpoints like this. Whatever the venue, it is more exposure for the long-buried truth. This is not about Shorter and his infamy. Both Psychology Today and the university need to know what is going on. They are not going to hear it from him.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
That he posted again, trying to reconcile his world view with current information, leaves me wondering if he pulled his own earlier post. I think that may be the case.

Either way, I think @Iquitos has it right. We need to challenge viewpoints like this. Whatever the venue, it is more exposure for the long-buried truth. This is not about Shorter and his infamy. Both Psychology Today and the university need to know what is going on. They are not going to hear it from him.
It is clear to me that he pulled his first blogpost after reading comments on it, deciding after all it might have been a big mistake.

He then re-wrote a new one, this time a bit more polished in order to escape scrutiny from University of Toronto.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Rather than continue to condemn Mr Shorter I would welcome the opportunity to win him over still further by personally introducing him to ME patients and letting him see how they live. He might then be able to see for himself more clearly why the IOM issued the report that it did, and be willing to direct his energies at encouraging further research into this still poorly understood disease.

I wouldn't let him near any patients.

I found the level of misogyny in a number of his recent articles very concerning. What also concerns me is his lack of ability to put together a coherent logical argument - I don't understand how he could have become a professor. I don't think he will change his mind even when faced with proof.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
It is clear to me that he pulled his first blogpost after reading comments on it, deciding after all it might have been a big mistake.

He then re-wrote a new one, this time a bit more polished in order to escape scrutiny from University of Toronto.

I'm not sure that it is more polished it seems pretty incoherent to me.
 
Messages
44
Location
USA
If I were this man's employer, I would seriously be concerned that a pathologically delusional person was working for me and interacting with fellow employees and students.

Really, insisting that the powerful ME/CFS patient lobby managed to coerce the otherwise esteemed IOM into conducting this review and taking the patients' side?? If the NIH and CDC goes along with the IOM recommendations, will that also tarnish THEIR reputations, in his view?

Get this guy a psych evaluation, STAT!
 

chipmunk1

Senior Member
Messages
765
Freud and Fleiss nearly killed a woman called Emma Eckstein when the operated on her nose to stop her masturbating and, thus, cure her of hysteria. She nearly bled to death. Really - they really did do that!

Freud didn't apologize instead he suggested that the operation had been done properly and the bleeding had been entirely psychosomatic produced by her subconscious desires because she had been in love with him.
 

Dx Revision Watch

Suzy Chapman Owner of Dx Revision Watch
Messages
3,061
Location
UK
He's actually calling it "part II" on his twitter, like it's somehow different than "part I". Perhaps he doesn't even realize the first article was taken down.

He's been asked several times via his Twitter Replies to explain the removal of the initial commentary which still appears to be behind a log in.

PT bloggers manage their own blog content, so it may be sitting behind his own log in, parked on his admin pages.

shortercensored.jpg

I wonder how many copies of this his publishers are stuck with?
 
Last edited:

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
I don't think this moron knows that in Ontario, the billing code for CFS is under 'neurological' disorders. This change occurred back in 2004 (I think). Perhaps, he should get up to date on this being a medical historian and all.
And I believe a few years ago there is a specific code for GP to use for special billing to recognize complexity of care.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Kati
It is clear to me that he pulled his first blogpost after reading comments on it, deciding after all it might have been a big mistake.

He then re-wrote a new one, this time a bit more polished in order to escape scrutiny from University of Toronto.


I'm not sure that it is more polished it seems pretty incoherent to me.

Its a polished turd, so congratulations to him cos you're not supposed to be able to do that.
 

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
Freud didn't apologize instead he suggested that the operation had been done properly and the bleeding had been entirely psychosomatic produced by her subconscious desires because she had been in love with him.

Not really a relevant comment I know but if that is true it's utterly priceless.
Where are all those 'I Heart Freud' stickers. I can always handcraft one in my own blood of course. ;)
 

Aurator

Senior Member
Messages
625
His original blog is still what he really thinks.
Perhaps, but I'd prefer to give him the benefit of the doubt at this stage, otherwise we too may prove to have jumped to conclusions prematurely.
What also concerns me is his lack of ability to put together a coherent logical argument
I don't think lack of coherence or logic is the chief problem, but rather his too firm assertion that he has grasped the truth about ME (and other things, apparently) when the truth about it eludes all of us. The reason his original position was so harmful is that a conviction that what you know about something is the truth does of course spell the end of your search for an alternative truth (potentially the genuine one), and the public airing he gave to his convictions about ME was and continues to be potentially very damaging to patients suffering from the disease, asserting as it did that a cure for ME would never be found because it was a "non-existent illness". His initial position was mere dogmatism; at least in his follow-up there is evidence in places that dogmatism has been replaced by scepticism, albeit ill-founded scepticism.

Whatever his motivation for rewriting the original article, it's apparent to me that, its still extreme position notwithstanding, he's attempted (many may think he has failed) to strike a more balanced and saner pose than that adopted in his original diatribe.
 
Last edited:

daisybell

Senior Member
Messages
1,613
Location
New Zealand
I personally see this second attempt as much more damaging than the first. He stated what he really thinks in the first blog, and then realised he could be in trouble for it, so pulled in and had a go at seeming more reasonable, presumably in the expectation that this might garner support from the BPS believers.... Which the first article was too extreme for in my opinion.
 
Messages
1,446
.

Edward Shorter has been at it for decades, like a broken record. He is a long term crony of Elaine Showalter (author of 'Hystories: Hysterical Epidemics and Modern Media: Alien abduction, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Satanic ritual abuse, Recovered memory, Gulf War syndrome, Multiple Personality Syndrome' (NY: Columbia University Press, 1997) .

They both assert that ME is the latest version of cultural hysteria/psychosomatic conditions which mutate in form over the centuries. Both Shorter and Showalter assert that ME is hysteria contagously spread via the media. You read about it in newspapers, or from the TV, and then catch it. That is a devilishly clever and tricky construction - its just as contagious as flu - but its not physical, its hysterical.

A deep vein of misogeny runs through both Shorter and Showalter's writing on the subject; their writing on ME (they mostly call it CFS) in particular descends into vitriol. Showalter is a Professor of English Literature and Freudian Feminist Literary critic who claimed that her mother whom she was estranged from had suffered from "several hysterical conditions". Puzzling for a woman, a self proclaimed feminist, to express such deep hostility toward other women (especially sick ones) - well, don't ask me why, ask her - she's the Freudian!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


http://articles.philly.com/1992-04-01/news/26002683_1_chronic-epstein-barr-virus-chronic-fatigue-cfs

‘Is Chronic Fatigue Psychosomatic? It's Time To Think’
by Scott Huler, Special to the Daily News

Posted: April 01, 1992


‘Although science has not yet found a cause for chronic fatigue syndrome, a University of Toronto professor claims it's contagious and says he knows how it's transmitted.

You get it from the media, says Edward Shorter, a medical history professor and author of a new book on psychosomatic illness.


Chronic fatigue syndrome, also called chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS) and chronic Epstein-Barr virus (CEBV), is the widely discussed malady whose sufferers complain of complete exhaustion; flu symptoms like fever, sore throat and swollen lymph nodes; aches and pains; headaches; joint soreness; and trouble sleeping.

If you're clutching your throat and gasping, "Good grief! I've had all those!" you're proving Shorter's point.

In fact, in his book "From Paralysis to Fatigue: A History of Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era" (Free Press, $19.95) Shorter contends that CFS is a model psychosomatic disease.

But it's by no means the first.


Throughout history, psychosomatic illnesses have said a great deal not only about their patients but about society at large, Shorter says.

For example, one of the most commonly cited psychosomatic illnesses was paralysis. In the 19th century, women would become suddenly bedridden, almost completely paralyzed.

This occurred, Shorter notes in his book, during a time when women were not expected to work or express themselves or even spend much time outside their homes. It was natural, Shorter says, for an unhappy woman to take "her inability to leave the house . . . and develop the symptom of paralysis."

Doctors completed the cycle: "Doctors were accustomed to seeing women as weak, frail creatures, so it made sense to them" that women inexplicably would become paralyzed.

In our own time, said Shorter, statistics show that people are working harder and longer than in the past. So it's only natural that CFS offers them a way to take a long break without "the shame of being a quitter."

But what really earmarks CFS as a psychosomatic illness, says Shorter, is its vague symptoms. The official guide used by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control to identify CFS lists 11 symptoms, including muscle discomfort, prolonged fatigue and generalized headaches.

"The symptoms fit so perfectly that they fit anyone," Shorter said.

Yet there is no physiological evidence to explain these vague symptoms, nothing to view under the microscope, he says.

Psychosomatic diseases are always associated with symptoms that are easy to ''somatize," which means cause psychologically. Swollen glands and low fevers, two complaints associated with CFS, are easy to produce, according to Shorter.

Another hallmark of psychosomatic illness is that the patient will absolutely insist that he does not have a psychological illness, and will often change doctors "every time the P-word is used," said Shorter.


Chronic fatigue sufferers, like June J. McInerny, are certain Shorter is wrong. McInerny, executive director of the Collegeville, Pa.-based CFIDS Central Support Network, suffered pain and memory impairment so debilitating that she was bedridden for 10 months. She is convinced her problem isn't psychosomatic: "I know that there's some little bugger in there causing this."

Scientists in labs all over the country are looking for that little bugger.

Among them is Dr. Elaine DeFreitas, of Philadelphia's Wistar Institute, who says she may have isolated the cause of chronic fatigue syndrome. After years of work, "we've isolated an agent, it looks like a retrovirus, and we've isolated it in seven out of eight patients," DeFreitas said. She admits that her evidence is hardly conclusive - "You really have to do huge studies, of hundreds, of thousands" to get definitive results - but her studies represent good science done by a respected researcher.

The Centers for Disease Control officially recognizes CFS. According to spokeswoman Kay Golan, the CDC has moved chronic fatigue into its viral disease unit, where a multi-year surveillance project is seeking the syndrome's cause. And the National Institutes of Health puts out official brochures on chronic fatigue.

That's a lot of attention for a disease that doesn't exist.

Which is just the point, says Shorter. The widespread interest in CFS reveals a great deal about the way people get their medical information today.

In the past, psychosomatic illnesses were publicized through word of mouth or through misinformed doctors. Today, information about current illnesses spreads the same way but more quickly because of modern communications, especially television.

That's why a fad disease - like last decade's hypoglycemia, or chronic fatigue syndrome - can so quickly reach epidemic proportions, Shorter said.


Shorter is particularly critical of the media's role in nurturing these epidemics. Little critical thought goes into many of the articles written and TV shows produced, he said. Even worse, there is frequently an inappropriate balance between the proponents of the disease and responsible medical authorities. Both sides of these debates are presented as equally credible, which they often are not, said Shorter. "Responsible medical voices who are completely skeptical are really never heard."

Sufferers of chronic fatigue, much like early AIDS patients, become advocates when they fail to find help from traditional medicine. CFS patients are extremely well informed on their illness, aware of current research and scientific publications. Local and national CFIDS newsletters are filled with reports on cutting-edge research.

But Shorter says this is just another characteristic of psychosomatic illness. To escape the taint of psychological illness, he said, sufferers ''all cite medical information very proudly."

Shorter's book does not try to explain why people develop psychosomatic illnesses; it merely addresses the illnesses that have developed over the years and the method by which patients learn what symptoms will gain them the sympathetic ear of a physician.

Nowadays, he said, "word travels so fast" that those disposed to psychosomatic illness can get a virtual blueprint of the symptoms they need to be diagnosed with the latest disease.

Shorter believes these alternative sources of information contribute to the problem by undermining the authority of doctors. To help patients with illnesses that may have emotional causes, Shorter said, doctors need to be informal psychotherapists. But with so many alternative sources of information, patients are less likely to trust the advice of their doctors, especially if told their disease is psychosomatic.’


.
 
Last edited:

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
In both articles and the bits that wildcat posted he comes across to me as someone with irrational beliefs. I suspect those with similar irrational beliefs will agree with him but I can't see his arguments changing anyone’s mind. He just sounds like a bigoted old man spouting theories that no one believes any more.
 

Gingergrrl

Senior Member
Messages
16,171
But Shorter says this is just another characteristic of psychosomatic illness. To escape the taint of psychological illness, he said, sufferers ''all cite medical information very proudly."

I wonder how Shorter would explain someone like me who views no "taint" or stigma to psychological illness and worked as a mental health social worker for 16 years? I have a documented case of severe mono from the EBV virus and documented blood tests showing re-activation of several viruses and extremely low NK functioning tests. My autonomic dysfunction was so bad that my current cardiologist, who is the head of his hospital dept, said that I am in the worst 25% of all patients that he has seen. I had no autonomic dysfunction prior to mono. Why did a medical doctor issue me a disabled placard and wheelchair? I assure you it was not for psychiatric reasons!

And as far as his claims to the media spreading this illness so that sufferers know what to say, I had never heard the term myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) in my entire life prior to becoming ill myself. This term is not used in the U.S. and I had never heard it in the media. I had no familiarity with CFS, although I had heard of the term, and if you would have asked me what it was prior to getting ill myself, I probably would have said it was "chronic fatigue of an unknown origin." I would not have been able to list the symptoms. When I went to OMI, I told them a very thorough history, what symptoms I had, I was examined, and I was given a diagnosis of ME/CFS. I did not give myself this diagnosis.

What would Dr. Shorter say to world experts like Dr. Montoya, Dr. Lerner, Dr. Kogelnick and Kaufman, Dr. Klimas, Dr. Enlander, Dr. Chia, Dr. De Meirlier, Dr. Myhill, Dr. Lapp, Dr. Komaroff, Dr. Byron Hyde, etc? Are they all wrong? I'd like to see him in a room with all of them. He would last about five minutes.
 

halcyon

Senior Member
Messages
2,482
I wonder how Shorter would explain someone like me who views no "taint" or stigma to psychological illness and worked as a mental health social worker for 16 years?
The amusing (confusing?) part about his second article, is that while he overwhelmingly states that CFS as a disease is solely the result of "psychic epidemics", he throws in bits like these:

It is, of course, possible that some unknown disease will be discovered to explain the symptoms of ME/CFS.

Is it possible that the symptoms of ME/CFS are occasionally caused by a real but undiagnosed disease? In some cases, undoubtedly. But the term includes two other clinical populations as well: patients with delusional somatization, who simply misinterpret the signals their bodies are sending off; and patients with a psychiatric disorder such as depression, which often causes feelings of pain and fatigue.

He's trying to play both sides of the field in order to not appear quite so bigoted, but the combination of both articles has made it quite clear that his beliefs rest solely in the psychogenic camp and he will entertain no other possibilities. Even in light of the mountain of evidence directly in front of him.
 
Messages
1,446
.
Edward Shorter:
"It is, of course, possible that some unknown disease will be discovered to explain the symptoms of ME/CFS."


That's Shorter's get-out clause. Showalter does the same. Prof Wessely also in his own terms.
.
 
Last edited: