Specifically, I suggested that GOOD talk therapy has a place in chronic illness -- not because it will cure anybody, but because having chronic illness is f$(*$)(# stressful.
The issue isn't that she's a psychotherapist. The issue is that she's implying that there are therapies based totally on the mind that can cure ME/CFS. And posting them on an article about biomedical research, where desperate patients will read her comment.
I agree with this entirely. And I agree that sinking money into research on any kind of talk therapy seems likely to be a waste of money. But if Dr. Naviaux feels that ME/CFS should be compared to PTSD before he draws any conclusions, I think that, at least in communicating our argument to a wider audience, we should wait as well. I think arguing that Dr. Mead has overreached and is offering a cure when she can't even cure herself is a much better line of argument than saying that we know that there will be no similarities between trauma response and dauer/ME/CFS. After all, Dr. Naviaux's study has made many of us excited that perhaps our illness is caused by some switch being kept on that should have been turned off--and that is exactly the description that somatic psychotherapists use when describing trauma.
As should be obvious from my prior comment I don't think we will find the mechanism to be the same, but it is interesting that dauer/ME/CFS affects many of the same pathways that the cell danger response (associated with PTSD) does, just in the opposite direction. Which is all to day that there is a chance that we will have some little piece to learn from the science of trauma--although most probably not in the way that most psychotherapists think.
I understand I'm walking a fine line here, and I see now that many of us will prefer to see my point as too fine a distinction to matter.
The issue is ... that she's offering her services to cure ME through these therapies in a clearly commercial way, since she's got a book in the works.
I see your point, and appreciate the time you took to point it out to me. Without the book, there would be no commercial interest.
As I said before, I agree with 90% (95% now
) of what has been said. And
@JaimeS in particular I appreciate your witty and informative posts both on PR and in response to many ignorant comments elsewhere.
This is awkward because PR is home for many of us. Yet we have access to none of the tools that normal friendships have to reaffirm connection (or tolerance) following a disagreement. I hope yall will accept my criticism in the spirit it was meant and that PR will continue to be a place where respectful disagreements can exist.
Yall are my second or third family. And if you're gotten this far, thanks for hearing me out.
