Psychosomatic medicine and ME/CFS.

[Sidereal]

 

[Valentijn]

Maybe she can team up with the SMC and help them insult and demonize patients some more. Hell, with advocates like that, who needs enemies?

 

[alex3619]

Psychology not dangerous? Psychiatry certainly is, but they are not the same. In the name of psychiatric therapy, historically, they have lobotomized large numbers, removed colons or teeth, and used dangerous therapies such as insulin or shock therapy. This is biopsychiatry. What is the issue in a lot of this is that psychopsychiatry wants to give the impression they do little harm, if any. Its simply not true. The greatest harm these days comes from overdiagnosis, closely followed by underdiagnosis, and followed by considering diagnosis and treatment as having more certainty than it deserves. This can impact legal matters including sectioning.

 

[Hip]

Where is the psyche? Can you see the psyche on an MRI scan? Can you measure it objectively? No, conclusion: the psyche does not exist.

Where is the physical dysfunction underlying ME/CFS? Can you see this physical dysfunction on an MRI scan? Can you measure it objectively? No, conclusion: a physical cause for ME/CFS does not exist, therefore ME/CFS must be psychosomatic.

So by your own logic, Gijs, you have just proved that ME/CFS is psychosomatic.

 

[Valentijn]

Where is the physical dysfunction underlying ME/CFS? Can you see this physical dysfunction on an MRI scan? Can you measure it objectively?

Yes, it can be objectively measured via the two-day CPET.

 

[chipmunk1]

Yeah, this 'type A personality drives disease' is utter BS. There are so many achievers out there who doesn't get sick. What type of personality do you think Wessely et al. is?

But perhaps we should start teaching kids in schools that they should just slack and not try to achieve, as it is bound to be bad for their health?

I think the idea that a type A personality can cause disease was popularized by research financed by the tobacco industry. I think a lot of early stress causing illness research was. The background:

The tobacco industry knew that smoking could cause illness and heart disease before most others knew.

To cover up the link they would finance studies showing psychosomatic factors responsible for some of the diseases that were caused by smoking. Of course it was all psychsomatic not caused by harmless cigarettes. Victim blaming.

Once the idea that the psyche was causing the problems became accepted they probably proposed the solution:

Smoking could calm the nerves and thus prevent psychosomatic illness!

Type A and Type B personality theorydescribes two contrastingpersonality types. In this theory, personalities that are more competitive, outgoing, ambitious, impatient and/or aggressive are labeled Type A, while more relaxed personalities are labeled Type B.
The two cardiologists who developed this theory came to believe that Type A personalities had a greater chance of developingcoronary heart disease. Following the results of further studies and considerable controversy about the role of thetobacco industryfunding of early research in this area, some reject, either partially or completely, the link between Type A personality and coronary disease. Nevertheless, this research had a significant effect on the development of thehealth psychologyfield, in whichpsychologistslook at how an individual's mental state affects their physical health.[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_A_and_Type_B_personality_theory#Funding_by_tobacco_companies

The concept of stress remains prominent in public health and owes much to the work of Hans Selye (1907–1982), the “father of stress.” One of his main allies in this work has never been discussed as such: the tobacco industry. After an analysis of tobacco industry documents, we found that Selye received extensive tobacco industry funding and that his research on stress and health was used in litigation to defend the industry's interests and argue against a causal role for smoking in coronary heart disease and cancer.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3036703/

Where is the physical dysfunction underlying ME/CFS? Can you see this physical dysfunction on an MRI scan? Can you measure it objectively? No, conclusion: a physical cause for ME/CFS does not exist, therefore ME/CFS must be psychosomatic

At least we know that physical illness exists. Can we say the same about psychosomatic illness?

 

[adreno]

Where is the physical dysfunction underlying ME/CFS? Can you see this physical dysfunction on an MRI scan? Can you measure it objectively? No, conclusion: a physical cause for ME/CFS does not exist, therefore ME/CFS must be psychosomatic.

So by your own logic, Gijs, you have just proved that ME/CFS is psychosomatic.

Actually, that's not the conclusion at all. If the premise is that something which cannot be measured does not exist, and if ME cannot be measured, then the conclusion would be that ME doesn't exist, and not that it's psychosomatic.

 

[alex3619]

Its just there are some steps missing.

1. You cannot prove physical causation.
2. Therefore there is no physical causation. (A fallacy by the way).
3. So the physical causation hypothesis, in this case ME (or CFS if you want), is wrong. (This relies on step two being right, which it isn't.)
4. That leaves psychosomatic causation as the only viable hypothesis. (Yet another fallacy).

This relies on not one but two fallacious steps in reasoning. Further, its applying a double standard, one which leaves psychiatry out on a limb, in a storm, and the limb has started to creak.

There is no proven universal physical caustion for CFS (or ME if you want, but they usually argue CFS). Where is the proven causal mechanism for ANY psychosomatic illness? Show me the proven mechanisms, step by step, and the definitive papers which demonstrate this!

The whole notion of definitive physical causation is sometimes a smokescreen because there are lots of biomarkers. Show me the biomarkers for psychosomatic illness! There HAVE to be some, at least in most cases, because the outcome is physical, and measurable. So at some step the "mental" causation must transform (induce, trigger, etc.) physical outcomes. So there is NO excuse for no biomarkers. This is further complicated by the huge heterogeneity in most conditions that are defined by symptomology. We really need an ME biomarker to make our point drive home.

Psychosomatic as the only viable hypothesis is an invalid leap. What if its something we cannot measure, do not know to measure, or have failed to measure accurately? What if its based on disease mechanisms still not uncovered or understood? What if its environmental toxins (including mold)? What if its electromagnetic damage? The mechanism behind at least one type of electromagnetic damage has some evidence for it, unlike psychosomatic claims. Heck, what if its the Illuminati, aliens, or an international conspiracy? Why stop the explanations at psychosomatic when the evidence for it is about as good as alien conspiracy?

The problem with psychosomatic claims is simple - lack of evidence, and lack of sound reasoning.

 

[Hip]

Yes, it can be objectively measured via the two-day CPET.

Not really, not in the sense I meant, since the 2-day CPET response is not the physical cause of ME/CFS, just a symptom of it.

The point I am making is that you cannot argue that something does not exist simply because you cannot measure it by today's technology or by today's knowledge. This is what the somatoform psychiatrists do, and it is patently wrong. So let's not use their flawed logic.

Actually, that's not the conclusion at all. If the premise is that something which cannot be measured does not exist, and if ME cannot be measured, then the conclusion would be that ME doesn't exist, and not that it's psychosomatic.

You could argue it that way. But if you assume causes can either be mental or physical, and your argument proves the cause is not physical, then it must be mental.