Good resoruce that might help you

[Andrew]

This resource is written by a psychiatrist for psychiatrists, and it explains why ME/CFS is a physical illness (not a mental illness), that the GET and CBT studies do not even address real ME/CFS, and it offers general guidelines for care. This is not a detailed medical guide. But it is something you might want to have on hand to show a GP or psychiatrist.

You can read more about its contents and link to a download from here: http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=7513&t=CFIDS_FM

Or, if that place doesn't work, here's an alternate link: http://sacfs.asn.au/download/guidelines_psychiatrists.pdf

 

[SOC]

This resource is written by a psychiatrist for psychiatrists, and it explains why ME/CFS is a physical illness (not a mental illness), that the GET and CBT studies do not even address real ME/CFS, and it offers general guidelines for care. This is not a detailed medical guide. But it is something you might want to have on hand to show a GP or psychiatrist.

You can read more about its contents and link to a download from here: http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=7513&t=CFIDS_FM

Thanks, Andrew. I haven't had a chance to read the whole document, but it looks like it will be a useful document to take to my GP.

 

[alex3619]

This guide appears to be unavailable at the moment. Even running a search gets me links that don't work. I met Ellie Stein in 1999, she was committed to understanding our illness even back then. Bye, Alex

PS A link that does get a guide, but I am not sure its the same one (although with the same author) is: http://www.ualberta.ca/~bioethic/Symposia pdfs/Symposium2010/FM-CFSPsychiatry-overview.pdf

 

[Andrew]

That's the same guide. I added another link to my original message. Thanks for letting me know.

 

[Valentijn]

Excellent information and a comprehensible layout. It shows how to easily differentiate between ME/CFS and anxiety and depression, and generally does a nice job of showing how the CBT "false illness belief/activity avoidance" theories are obviously incorrect.

 

[Firestormm]

Thanks Andrew. I certainly haven't come across this one before and have downloaded to read later

 

[PhoenixDown]

This resource is written by a psychiatrist for psychiatrists, and it explains why ME/CFS is a physical illness (not a mental illness), that the GET and CBT studies do not even address real ME/CFS, and it offers general guidelines for care. This is not a detailed medical guide. But it is something you might want to have on hand to show a GP or psychiatrist.

You can read more about its contents and link to a download from here: http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=7513&t=CFIDS_FM

Or, if that place doesn't work, here's an alternate link: http://sacfs.asn.au/download/guidelines_psychiatrists.pdf

In the largest epidemiological study to date, it was shown by Jason and colleagues in
Chicago that only 40% of the community CFS cohort had pure CFS (Jason et al, 1999)

What definition of CFS did Jason et al use? How do you suppose they "knew" that only 40% had pure CFS?

EDIT: Not to say it's a bad guide, it actually reads like it was written by a patient. I do wonder though if anyone actually takes it on board? Is it mandatory reading?

 

[merylg]

Thanks Andrew, I think I will find that download useful!

 

[taniaaust1]

What definition of CFS did Jason et al use? How do you suppose they "knew" that only 40% had pure CFS?

EDIT: Not to say it's a bad guide, it actually reads like it was written by a patient. I do wonder though if anyone actually takes it on board? Is it mandatory reading?

I think Jason uses the canadian consensus defintion of it.

 

[alex3619]

What definition of CFS did Jason et al use? How do you suppose they "knew" that only 40% had pure CFS?

EDIT: Not to say it's a bad guide, it actually reads like it was written by a patient. I do wonder though if anyone actually takes it on board? Is it mandatory reading?

Jason has compared Oxford, Reeves, CCC and Fukuda - one of the things he does is comparisons which are then published. One of the things that happened with the Oxford and Reeves definitions was a ten-fold increase in prevalence. Most of those probably don't have the same illness. That would be tantamount to saying, given the Oxford definition, that all cases of unexplained fatigue must be the same thing, and we are calling it CFS. Its a nonsense, but then again that is what we have been saying about the Oxford definition all along. On the one hand they say its a heterogenous group, and on the other those who use this definition try to treat it as a single group with the same disorder. On the third hand they produce spin about it.

We need some Moties to sort them out, how many get the third (gripping) hand reference?

Bye, Alex

 

[Boule de feu]

When I found out I had ME in 2006, this is what kept me from going insane. I needed reassurance that what I was going through was real. It was a physical condition and not my mind playing tricks on me. It was one of the best documents I've found on the subject.