You seem to be opposed to the idea that the concept of 'stress' as a trigger of disease leads to patient blaming. We certainly don't blame ourselves, but an important part of the medical community and government does use this concept as a reason to put the entire burden and responsibility on us patients. It turns our illness into a non issue. This directly leads to a lack of research, a lack of treatment, a lack of social support, and ultimately to overall neglect of very, very sick patients. This is real and it has been going on on a daily basis for decades. So yes, we are opposed to it. We are way past the point of wanting to cling onto something that might influence some people. We need real answers, now.
My sense is that your comment does a good job of distilling the main spirit behind the collective resistance to investigating "stress." So I think it's important to emphasize what
@pamojja already pointed out: that the primary resistance is basically political.
My past life as a journalist perhaps predisposes me toward the pursuit of facts, regardless of political consequences. There's actually a hopeful ethic in that: even if certain facts initially cause turmoil, the journalist hopes the long-term commitment to the investigation will eventually bring about the greatest overall progress. (Obviously I'm describing an ideal, and not referring to Fox News.)
With that in mind, I want to add just a couple more things to the discussion, but then I'll let this topic go. My intent in bringing it up was not to make people uncomfortable. Clearly, this is a loaded issue.
@JaimeS reminds us of the pain brought on by the PACE fiasco, Wessley's portrayals, and the pitfalls of personality-typing. But when I see nuanced arguments being reduced to caricature (e.g, as if mentioning stress is the same as saying it is 100% responsible for 100% of ME cases; or when someone else suggests the concept of stress is medically useless, when we all know it's highly relevant in certain medical conditions), the over-sensitivity (IMO) to the concept is confirmed.
@Effi, I think you might even recognize some hyperbole in your paragraph above if you were to parse it again.
While feelings may be strong, the resultant politics are usually not so straightforward. Often there are unintended consequences, and that's the reason I commented in the first place. While I do think Kim Knight (the speaker) is naive and misguided (see my first post), I do not believe average viewers would see her as a malevolent "fraud" who doesn't care about anything other than making money. I think she comes across generally as a quite reasonable, empathetic person with experiences that she thinks might be helpful to others. I'll bet some viewers could probably see life benefits from her story. So to announce a call to arms here, advising people to go over there and fight, could have the unintended effect of making our community sound hysterical to average people. Whereas, if the topic were not so loaded, it would be much easier to go over there and actually enlighten Knight and her followers through civil discussion. There are simply some things she's ignorant about -- that's it. What good does it do to go there and call this woman's entire body of work "rubbish," "psychobabble," "utter nonsense," telling her she "should be ashamed," and instructing viewers to "believe this at your peril"?
I'm aware of the political struggles -- and I'm also aware that the political affects the personal. For years I've been unable to find a single doctor who will run any viral tests on me, because they think viral theories are silly, and, besides, everyone always tests positive, so what's the point? I doubt exposing such doctors to vitriolic certitude is going to get me my viral testing any sooner.
Finally, I offer a gentle reminder that we are all on our own distinct journeys. One commonality, however, is that we all know what it's like to have our perceptions routinely dismissed and diminished. So I'm sure everyone can relate to the feeling I get every time I describe (not only in this thread) my long period of chronic stress as unusually severe and unavoidable -- only to have people respond with "we all deal with stress," or "yeah, this disease can stress you out." (Sound familiar? "We
all get tired...") Or when you say you "just don't see the point" of investigating stress narratives, or that you see my interest as "clinging" to abstractions, it can feel just as dismissive as when those doctors giggle at me for bringing up dead viruses.
I mention this only as a call for perspective. (I'm not pissed off.) Feeling dismissed goes with the territory; it's a peculiar aspect of our fate (not necessarily unique to us, but certainly we deal with it more than average). Some of you might feel dismissed by some things I've said. (After all, I did call Effi's claims hyperbolic. Ouch.)
Okay, I've said my peace. Moving on. Thanks for listening.