Jennie-
If I want to contact the board or a member by email, what would you suggest? Should I email CAA and ask them to forward it on?
Yep! Email to cfids@cfids.org and put "For the Board of Directors" or similar in your subject line.
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.
Jennie-
If I want to contact the board or a member by email, what would you suggest? Should I email CAA and ask them to forward it on?
Thanks very much Starlight and also justinreilly.
If you are referring to the latest Staci Stevens paper I referred to, it's briefly discussed here: http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/sh...l-for-Physical-Therapist-Management-of-CFS-ME
The reason I wasn't definite if it has changed or not is that I can't see any times mentioned in the previous version in the Jason et al. (2007) paper (abstract in above link) but in the latest paper, they appear to be shorter than anyone I've heard mention times before which makes me things there has been a change:
From latest paper:
Exercise Interventions
Exercise interventions for people
with CFS/ME must be carefully customized
to reflect the unique needs
of each individual. The existing literature
mentions 2 critical issues in
prescribing physical activity for people
with CFS/ME. First, clear communication
between the individual and
the physical therapist about the effects
of the exercise program is critical
to avoid the perception that
physical activity has been increased
because of increased physical capacity
instead of the self-fulfilling prophecy
associated with starting an exercise
program. Second, aerobic system
impairments associated with CFS/ME
result in functional impairments that
may not be amenable to training in
people with CFS/ME compared with
people who are sedentary.
We assert that exercise interventions
for people with CFS/ME require a
combination of compensation and
rehabilitation approaches to physical
training in which training begins with
activities that provide stress to the
unimpaired anaerobic energy system
before the impaired aerobic energy
system is stressed. Therefore, we advocate
a training approach in which
initial therapeutic activities are short
duration, low intensity, and directed
toward specific contributing impairments
in body structures and functions.
Because oxidative phosphorylation
serves as the primary metabolic
pathway in activities lasting longer
than 2 minutes (Fig. 2), aerobic sys-
tem impairments in people with
CS/ME would seem to limit activities
longer than 2 minutes because of the
risk of developing symptoms and functional
deficits associated with PEM.
Therefore, we recommend therapeutic
activities that last less than 2
minutes and are conducted at an intensity
consistent with an HR that is
10% below the HR at the AT or RPEs
below 13 to 15. Previous studies
demonstrated that reducing exercise
time and intensity is effective in reducing
symptoms of PEM in people
with CFS/ME.60 These recommendations
regarding duration and intensity
are flexible; clinicians should be
guided by the individual’s immediate
and latent responses to therapeutic
activities to determine appropriate
exercise volume.
We recommend that activities initially
consist of stretching and activerange-
of-motion (AROM) exercises
to improve region-specific strength
and flexibility, because deficits in
strength and flexibility may be the
source of increased energy expenditure
through suboptimal movement
mechanics. The specific exercises incorporated
into the flexibility and
AROM program depend on the clinician’s
thorough examination and
evaluation of potentially contributing
pathomechanics. After participating in
a stretching and AROM program that
does not reproduce symptoms of
PEM, people may advance to strength
training in which the focus is on shortduration,
low-intensity strengthening
with maintenance of adequate rest intervals.
Clinicians should use caution
during the creation and progression of
the resistance training program because
the safety and effectiveness of
these interventions in people with
CFS/ME require additional research.
Finally, people with CFS/ME may advance
to short-duration, low-intensity
interval training. As starting criteria,
the duration of the intervals should
not exceed 2 minutes, and the intensity
should not exceed an HR that is
10% below the HR at the AT. Progression
of interval training should involve
increasing the number and intensity
of intervals while maintaining
a training range that prevents excessive
use of the impaired aerobic system
in people with CFS/ME. Interval
training should involve functional retraining
whenever possible, according
to the physical therapist’s evaluation
of the individual’s disablement. When
short-duration interval training can
be completed successfully, clinicians
should consider initiating shortduration
aerobic interval training,
which can be advanced in an incremental
manner according to people’s
symptoms, as described elsewhere.39
Despite the importance of exercise
to address physical conditioning in
some people with CFS/ME, the healthrelated
quality of life of people with
CFS/ME is only weakly correlated
with exercise capacity measurements.
This fact underlines the importance
of multimodal treatment, including
individual education and pacing selfmanagement,
to address the activity
and participation limitations in people
with CFS/ME.
Despite the importance of exercise
to address physical conditioning in
some people with CFS/ME, the healthrelated
quality of life of people with
CFS/ME is only weakly correlated
with exercise capacity measurements.
This fact underlines the importance
of multimodal treatment, including
individual education and pacing selfmanagement,
to address the activity
and participation limitations in people
with CFS/ME.
Firstly, in case there Is any doubt, me posting that information shouldn't be seen as a recommendation.From this latest paper and what else I have read from Staci Stevens, I don't think she has a good grasp of exercise in ME/CFIDS. It is better than what you read from the Wessely school, but that falls into the range of malpractice. I am a bit miffed from reading that one of the top docs, I think it was David Bell, strongly recommended her. Perhaps there is something I am missing or maybe the program in practice is less harmful than this advice appears to me.
For example, what makes her think that anaerobic metabolism is unimpaired and that lack of flexibility is perhaps the reason for reduced exercise capacity? Reduced flexibility is a problem, but not the most important one. Muscle pathology including mitochondrial dysfunction is the main problem.
This quote, if I am reading it correctly, seems to underline her failure to fully grasp the science and clinical wisdom:
She seems to be saying, 'Despite the fact that exercise is important in ME, the science says it's not, so don't focus on it.' I would endorse only the second part of this contradictory (appearing to me) statement.
- Justin - The CME should start with the CCC and add in passages from the present CAA (currently non-credit) CME that are accurate or modified for accuracy. CAA should do this or at least coordinate it. It's too much to ask us to do alone. A competent editor and contributors could draft it and then submit it to Lapp and Batemen for approval. Then CAA needs to get credit approval for it and renew the approval.
The CME credits for the 'new' CAA CME programme have expired. But take heart, the CDC renewed the CME credits for its course authored by Reeves, Jones, McCleary, et al. through 2012. No physician is going to do a CME for no credit so doctors are back to studying the old POS.
I assume that CAA is able to get it renewed as CDC did theirs (and you can do this for law CLEs) and is just out to lunch as usual. Is it appropriate that we have to babysit someone paid $187K to help us?
From what I know of her, I am impressed with her. I have trouble believing she or Dr. Lapp wrote this, it was probably another author. If they have their names on it though, I think that Dr. Bateman and Dr. Lapp should have looked it over and approved it prior to publication.
My point was we can't have blind faith in the 'experts'. This is lesson one in the story of ME/CFIDS. If you know something is wrong or harmful, don't publish it even if it was written by an expert.
I just added this to my already huge to-do list: Write CAA and get list of doctors who have received the Spark! brochures and flawed CME materials.
Next time I'm seeking a new doctor, I'll have to check the list and avoid anyone who's been educated by the CAA about ME/CFS. Any doctor who has read the materials in question is going to have false beliefs about me, why I'm sick, and how much I can do. Those beliefs won't be based on physiological reality.
Soon a new organization would spring up that's more responsive to the wishes of its constituency, as Marc Iverson called us in his resignation letter.
In the meantime, it would be better to have no physician education program than the one propagated by CAA.
Mark [Iverson]also told me [in 1989] that he originally wanted to name their group the Myalgic Encephalomyelitis Association, but that he was outvoted.
I
1) Put the maximum possible pressure on CDC to appoint an outside expert as the new Chronic Viral Diseases Branch Chief. Someone such as Nancy Klimas, Leonard Jason, Paul Cheney, Dan Peterson, etc. An ostensibly well-meaning CDC insider is not acceptable in view of CDC's long sordid history re: ME. This is a very rare opportunity to make a huge difference in the federal response for years to come. An outside expert running the show could well lead to a cascade effect of increasing medical and social progress.
Why would you think that they're not? They did more to bring down Dr. Reeve's than any other organization. They called for a total revamping of the CFS program. Why would you think they're not committed to someone like Dr. Klimas. I think that's very unlikely the CDC is going to do that given the history of the program but we'll see.
2) Pull down everything on website (unless it's truly been reviewed to ensure accuracy and the advancement of patients' interests).
commitments
Pull down everything on the website! Why don't you Take a look through it? What do you want down? The BioBank part, the part where patients tell their stories, maybe the research section part, maybe the Advocacy part should go.... maybe the Grant section is suspect - who knows what they could have put in there....Then there's the Disability - who knows what snuck in there?...Yes there are problematic parts - many of which are not linked up anymore - instead of taking the throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach - I think it would be better to stick to those.
3) Put up Canadian Consensus Criteria on home page.
Have you ever read the CCC? I suggest that if you haven't - since I guess you haven't - that you do. Its a rather long document. I don't see many websites with long, scientific documents on their Front Page. You might want to check out Health Support website and see what they look like. I don't think that's going to work
4) Divide up CCC into sections and have those be the main reference/ info pages for site.
5) Substitute 'ME' or 'ME/CFIDS' for 'CFS' and 'CFIDS' (including in CAA name).
I do agree that the CAA needs to incorporate ME/CFS more into their materials. As to changing their name - that's not an easy process but I hope they will do that over time.
6) Begin and quickly complete review of all CAA materials, on website and in print, for accuracy and to make sure they advance the interests of patients. Zoom This should begin with everything on the website and the CME.
Repeat of an earlier one.
7) When CME has been edited, renew credit-approval for it (as credit-approval has lapsed).
Again, this was put together by CFS professionals with years of experience - talking to other doctors - I'm going to rely on their experience and accept that they know what they're doing.
8) Aggressively publicize, on the website and in contacting media exactly how the US and UK government have been persecuting ME patients. This includes declaring the Oxford Criteria and any studies based upon it to be totally invalid.
9) Secure agreement from Kim McCleary to do all the above and to otherwise truly advocate for patients. If she agrees, set her salary at $100,000 for 2011 with the assurance that if the board decides she has done an exemplary job, her salary will be raised to $150,000 the following year. If Ms. McCleary can not agree to this, do not renew her contract and begin searching for a replacement.
The CFIDS Association has board of ME/CFS patients many of whom have professional backgrounds to do this. While I think Forum participants have had many very good suggestions - a good number of which the CFIDS Association has followed up on - I'm going to again trust the Board on this one.
10) Aggressively lobby US Congress and HHS for appropriate funding of and response to ME epidemic. This includes a 100 fold increase in funding; appointment of an outside expert as head of CDC Chronic Viral Diseases Branch; change of name to ME or ME/CFIDS and Congressional investigation into HHS misfeasance.
For some reason you think the CFIDS Association is not doing this- which honestly galls me. The CAA Board of Directors and Kim McCleary and Suzanne Vernon just spent three days up on Capitol Hill doing just this. (Except for the name change and congressional investigation). What do you think they were doing? Twiddling their fingers? Do you think it's easy to get more funding for CFS? Have you looked at all into how CFS is funded at the NIH? Do you have any idea of the labyrinthine process CFS researchers have to go through to get funded? I suspect that you don't - since my sense is that you think this is all so easy - that all they need to do is ask.
IF you check out the Congressional record I think you'll find that they ask every year...and they try to get you to ask every year as well. Have you? If not maybe that's one reason we're not getting funded.
11) Take names of CAA employees off of inaccurate and abusive material published by CDC including the CDC CME and the Reeves Definition.
This isn't Russia circa 1930's where you remove the names of authors from documents long after they've been published. I don't think that's going to happen
12) After the preceding is done, start going after purveyors of misinformation such as CDC, NIH, UK NHS, UK NICE, British psychiatrists, journals and textbooks.
13) Include pictures of wheelchair- and hospitalbed-bound patients on the homepage in addition to the current pictures of patients who look depressed but otherwise healthy.
Right now there's picture of a young woman lying in bed. She she doesn't look depressed to me. Why would you characterize her as looking depressed? What is the matter with that picture? Do you want an emaciated, sallow looking woman? You might want to take a look at other Patient Support Organizations website - you don't see that kind of thing. It doesn't appear to work nor does it represent many CFS patients. I've been to CFS conferences - yes, there are some patients like that but most of them look very normal.
This is another nice-sounding idea that one wonders how you can disagree with. But the world is not so simple. The fact is that the CCC has been to my knowledge been used in one out of the thousands research studies done on chronic fatigue syndrome which means you can't relate any of the research done on CFS to it - which means if you replace the 1994 criteria with it you're talking absolute blarney to the research community.
The CCC is also not a research definition - its a clinical definition. It could be turned into one and that may be happening with the IACFS/ME. Before anyone goes lapdog happy with IACFS/ME the only reason for that is that Hemispherx is giving them money to come up with a new research definition. The IACFS/ME is our professional organization - it should be the one to be doing that.
The CAA can support the Canadian consensus criteria and I agree that they should do that more. I think they should strongly advocate for its adoption as the clinical definition of chronic fatigue syndrome. Hopefully the IACFS/ME will create a new research definition that is modeled on the CCC. The CAA has had Dr. Jason write about it before and they are giving him an excellent platform to do so tomorrow.
Original posted by Cort:
Your assumptions are wrong. The CDC puts their own program on their own website - they simply have to keep it running; the CAA, on the other hand, has to pay a substantial amount - from what I've heard - to keep the program on Medscape website. I agree that they should do what they can to keep it current.
I think you assume that you know too much Justin. You may not agree with Kim McCleary's decisions but if you've ever talked with her you can tell she's a very smart woman who doesn't need you to 'babysit' her. She is extremely well-versed in the research side of chronic fatigue syndrome. I would do a lot better with your criticisms if you could couch them in a less demeaning manner.Speaking in such a belittling manner that does two things; one, it can provoke a similar response (probably from me ) and two, it doesn't give the issues complexity the justice due to them. Some people think I'm a shill for the CAA or blind to their faults - I think I've shown that that's not true - but what I've really protested at are demeaning comments like that.
The following individuals are considered content experts for this activity:
* James Jones, MD, Research Medical Officer, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* Teresa Lupton, RN, BSS, Coordinator for Medical Opportunities, CFIDS Association of America
* Kimbery McCleary, BA, CEO, CFIDS Association of America
* William Reeves, MD, Branch Chief, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
* Vicki Walker, BA, Manager, Research and Public Policy, CFIDS Association of America (formerly)...
As yet, there are no diagnostic tests or laboratory markers for CFS, and its pathophysiology remains unknown...
Various terms are often used interchangeably with CFS. CFS is the preferred term because it has an internationally accepted case definition that is used in research and clinical settings. The name chronic fatigue and immune dysfunction syndrome (CFIDS) was introduced soon after CFS was defined; there is no case definition for CFIDS, and the name implies an understanding about the pathophysiology of CFS that does not currently exist... The name myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) was coined in the 1950s to clarify well-documented outbreaks of disease; however, ME is accompanied by neurologic and muscular signs and has a case definition distinct from that of CFS.
From Justin
Here's there's another eye-opening fact for you Justin. The Board of the Fair Name Change Campaign for CFS (Dr. Klimas, Dr. Cheney, Dr. Bateman, Dr. Komaroff, Dr. Jason, Rich Carson, etc) unanimously voted not to have myalgic encephalomyelitis as the name for CFS in 2008 I think it was.
..
Quote Originally Posted by justinreilly View Post
1) Put the maximum possible pressure on CDC to appoint an outside expert as the new Chronic Viral Diseases Branch Chief. Someone such as Nancy Klimas, Leonard Jason, Paul Cheney, Dan Peterson, etc. An ostensibly well-meaning CDC insider is not acceptable in view of CDC's long sordid history re: ME. This is a very rare opportunity to make a huge difference in the federal response for years to come. An outside expert running the show could well lead to a cascade effect of increasing medical and social progress.
Why would you think that they're not? They did more to bring down Dr. Reeve's than any other organization. They called for a total revamping of the CFS program. Why would you think they're not committed to someone like Dr. Klimas. I think that's very unlikely the CDC is going to do that given the history of the program but we'll see.
I don't doubt a commitment to outside experts like Dr. Klimas. I don't know how much emphasis they are putting on this, if any; I have seen no mention from CAA except to note that a CDC spokesperson said CDC was going to go ahead with appointing someone ASAP. I am just stating that's what I want to see.
2) Pull down everything on website (unless it's truly been reviewed to ensure accuracy and the advancement of patients' interests).
commitments
Pull down everything on the website! Why don't you Take a look through it? What do you want down? The BioBank part, the part where patients tell their stories, maybe the research section part, maybe the Advocacy part should go.... maybe the Grant section is suspect - who knows what they could have put in there....Then there's the Disability - who knows what snuck in there?...Yes there are problematic parts - many of which are not linked up anymore - instead of taking the throwing the baby out with the bathwater approach - I think it would be better to stick to those.
OK, you have a point- just pull down everything that talks about the disease and how to treat it. Replace with material from CCC article.
3) Put up Canadian Consensus Criteria on home page.
Have you ever read the CCC? I suggest that if you haven't - since I guess you haven't - that you do. Its a rather long document. I don't see many websites with long, scientific documents on their Front Page. You might want to check out Health Support website and see what they look like. I don't think that's going to work
I've read it a couple of times. Put up the intro section with a link to the doc. Substitute all their information sections on the disease and treatment with the corresponding sections from CCC article. This has been strongly suggested by a number of other people on this thread with noone dissenting except for you.
4) Divide up CCC into sections and have those be the main reference/ info pages for site.
5) Substitute 'ME' or 'ME/CFIDS' for 'CFS' and 'CFIDS' (including in CAA name).
I do agree that the CAA needs to incorporate ME/CFS more into their materials. As to changing their name - that's not an easy process but I hope they will do that over time.
I am happy we mostly agree. This one would go a long way toward helping us out. :Retro smile:
6) Begin and quickly complete review of all CAA materials, on website and in print, for accuracy and to make sure they advance the interests of patients. This should begin with everything on the website and the CME.
Repeat of an earlier one.
7) When CME has been edited, renew credit-approval for it (as credit-approval has lapsed).
Again, this was put together by CFS professionals with years of experience - talking to other doctors - I'm going to rely on their experience and accept that they know what they're doing.
I have a tremendous amount of respect for Drs. Lapp and Bateman.
I think this document is too important to leave to the experts including co-author Kim McCleary. I don't know who wrote what, but I do know the document could be made a good deal more accurate and helpful and this should be done.
8) Aggressively publicize, on the website and in contacting media exactly how the US and UK government have been persecuting ME patients. This includes declaring the Oxford Criteria and any studies based upon it to be totally invalid.
9) Secure agreement from Kim McCleary to do all the above and to otherwise truly advocate for patients. If she agrees, set her salary at $100,000 for 2011 with the assurance that if the board decides she has done an exemplary job, her salary will be raised to $150,000 the following year. If Ms. McCleary can not agree to this, do not renew her contract and begin searching for a replacement.
The CFIDS Association has board of ME/CFS patients many of whom have professional backgrounds to do this. While I think Forum participants have had many very good suggestions - a good number of which the CFIDS Association has followed up on - I'm going to again trust the Board on this one.
Her strategies and execution have not worked well enough. There needs to be a change. Either Ms. McCleary commits to change and executes or new leadership should be installed. I guess we agree to disagree.
10) Aggressively lobby US Congress and HHS for appropriate funding of and response to ME epidemic. This includes a 100 fold increase in funding; appointment of an outside expert as head of CDC Chronic Viral Diseases Branch; change of name to ME or ME/CFIDS and Congressional investigation into HHS misfeasance.
For some reason you think the CFIDS Association is not doing this- which honestly galls me. The CAA Board of Directors and Kim McCleary and Suzanne Vernon just spent three days up on Capitol Hill doing just this. (Except for the name change and congressional investigation). What do you think they were doing? Twiddling their fingers? Do you think it's easy to get more funding for CFS? Have you looked at all into how CFS is funded at the NIH? Do you have any idea of the labyrinthine process CFS researchers have to go through to get funded? I suspect that you don't - since my sense is that you think this is all so easy - that all they need to do is ask.
IF you check out the Congressional record I think you'll find that they ask every year...and they try to get you to ask every year as well. Have you? If not maybe that's one reason we're not getting funded.
They are lobbying, which is good. I have read the CAA lobbying documents you have pointed me to and others. I am including this more as a statement of what I think is important than as a statement that CAA isn't doing it.
Since we don't have results I suspect not enough is being done, but I can't say for sure since I am not involved myself.
This is the first year I have written in to Congress about appropriations. I will do so in the future. I feel, as an individual, I am doing my share for awareness. I feel that CAA, as the most prominent patient organization with more resources than me as an individual, is not doing enough.
11) Take names of CAA employees off of inaccurate and abusive material published by CDC including the CDC CME and the Reeves Definition.
This isn't Russia circa 1930's where you remove the names of authors from documents long after they've been published. I don't think that's going to happen
I don't understand your response. I am not asking the government to remove CAA employees' names without the employees' consent. I think CDC likes having CAA affiliated names on their papers since it shows they have coauthorship from patient advocates. I am saying CAA and it's employees should take their names off of the CDC documents such as the CDC CME saying that 'CFIDS' is an invalid name for 'CFS' since no immune dysfunction has been shown.
In the case of former CAA employees who don't want their names taken off, then those names wouldn't be taken off. In that case though, I would like CAA to ask CDC to include a sentence in the authors list that CAA no longer supports the document.
12) After the preceding is done, start going after purveyors of misinformation such as CDC, NIH, UK NHS, UK NICE, British psychiatrists, journals and textbooks.
13) Include pictures of wheelchair- and hospitalbed-bound patients on the homepage in addition to the current pictures of patients who look depressed but otherwise healthy.
Right now there's picture of a young woman lying in bed. She she doesn't look depressed to me. Why would you characterize her as looking depressed? What is the matter with that picture? Do you want an emaciated, sallow looking woman? You might want to take a look at other Patient Support Organizations website - you don't see that kind of thing. It doesn't appear to work nor does it represent many CFS patients. I've been to CFS conferences - yes, there are some patients like that but most of them look very normal.
I understand what you're saying. There is nothing wrong with being depressed and it is a natural reaction to a devastating disease. Most people who have ME look healthier than they are. Approximately 25% are home-, wheelchair- or bed- bound so it would be nice to include some more images of them. Andrea Whittemore in NYTimes with an oxygen tube- I thought that was a good look. :Retro smile: It conveyed ME is a serious disease.
(I understand a popular thing in media and websites is people looking serious against grey skies, but it seems like that reinforces a bit the idea of ME as healthy depressed people. This last point is a minor one on which people will disagree.)
My question with regard to kinesophobia or behavioral therapies or anything like that is do you think ME/CFS patients are human beings?
That's a serious question. Do you think ME/CFS patients are, by and large, normal human beings or do you think that somehow this disease plucked out a superhuman subset of humans who are immune to all of the missteps and mistakes that the general trend of humanity makes when faced with any really difficult situation?
I think people with ME/CFS were probably normal human beings some of whom, when faced with such a difficult situation probably make errors of judgment. I know I sure have. The army doesn't throw recruits in the middle of a battle without extensively retraining them first. Nobody trained any of us in how to deal with a completely life altering situation. People are going to make mistakes suggesting that we aren't going to do that is, to me, untenable.
Therefore, if its Dr. Lapp and Dr. Bateman experience that some patients have a kinesophobia then I'm not surprised! I would suspect some people to develop that. Most of the times in my journey through CFS I've overdone it physically but there have been times I have definitely under done it on the activity front and it really did me temporary harm. Juggling activity levels is not an easy process after all, the nature of this illness - with the sometimes postponed reaction to exercise, makes it difficult, sometimes, to figure out what is causing what.
After reading the CME I think doctors will look at this illness from all angles. The kinesophobia section is one small section of the document that only applies to one set of patients. While patients may not get that I think doctors understand that it's probably a normal reaction that some people will have and that it is to be expected.
CBS- not sure if you're responding specifically to my comments. The kinesophobia material doesn't sound like it would have come from Drs. Lapp or Bateman, but of course, I don't know for sure. I agree that the real experts are admirably humble about what they don't know. That's an indication that this passage was probably not written by an expert like Lapp or Bateman. Declaring without evidence that ME patients suffer from implausible mental illnesses is the bedrock approach of charlatans like the UK psychiatrists, not of true experts like Lapp and Bateman.An additional comment on the falacy of simply denying that an expert like Bateman or Lapp or Klimas could have written a statement. I have spoken one on one with a number of top CSF researchers and one of the things that stands out is that to a person, they are all willing to state that there is much that they don't know. That degree of humility while trying to help their patients in very difficult situations is impressive and hard earned.
Making a recommendation based upon what you believe is in your patients' best interests when so many questions remain is always fraught with the danger of being second guessed. Making a recommendation to doctors with little background is CFS exponentially more so.
This is true. It is a huge challenge.We all have our own experiences and we are passionate about what we "know" and yet we cannot state with confidence which aspects of our own experience are shared across the population of CFS patients.
I agree they are not arrogant. It is particularly the improper use of the term 'kinesophobia', a specific and bizarre mental illness, which I think we can all agree is quite unusual in ME patients, if it exists in our population at all, which smacks of the arrogance and the type of inappropriate psychopathologizing that lies at the heart of Wessely et al.'s strategy.The CFS doctors that I know are not arrogant, to a person they have been humbled by this illness. A like minded approach in addressing 'missteps' in recommendations (so as not to make yet another misstep in a different direction - and yes, I think that for myself there have been periods when being slightly more active has made me more resilient down the road - but that's just my interpretation) is far less likely to be dismissed as simplistic and uninformed by those with a much broader (but perhaps not as deep - at least as a long time CFS patient's) exposure to CFS.
CBS- not sure if you're responding specifically to my comments. The kinesophobia material doesn't sound like it would have come from Drs. Lapp or Bateman, but of course, I don't know for sure.
I don't think it should be forgotten that some patients involved in running patient organisations can also have quite "broad" exposure to CFS also.We all have our own experiences and we are passionate about what we "know" and yet we cannot state with confidence which aspects of our own experience are shared across the population of CFS patients.
The CFS doctors that I know are not arrogant, to a person they have been humbled by this illness. A like minded approach in addressing 'missteps' in recommendations (so as not to make yet another misstep in a different direction - and yes, I think that for myself there have been periods when being slightly more active has made me more resilient down the road - but that's just my interpretation) is far less likely to be dismissed as simplistic and uninformed by those with a much broader (but perhaps not as deep - at least as a long time CFS patient's) exposure to CFS.