1) A diagnosis with no test will mean people spontaneously recover anyway. Including Cancer with no Cancer test.
2) If you believe CFS is Fukuda CFS and nothing else, then yes, people do recover from CFS, end of debate.
3) If you however believe there is an organic disease or diseases within CFS, then there is zero evidence anyone has ever recovered from these since it's inception in 1988 as we don't know what CFS is yet and thus cannot respond to stories of recovery with honest acceptance of these stories as 'fact' as we don't know what these people had wrong with them to begin with, including themselves!
With CFS we don't have the evidence that it is organic. With cancer and CVD we have. 100s of verified radical remission stories documented in literature. With CVD we have, or rather in my case have the MRI pictures and ultra sound documentation. So there is the 5th possibility of processes which lead to remissions, we simple don't fully understand yet.
During the course of the study, Kelly identified more than seventy-five factors that cancer survivors said they used as a part of their healing journey. Nine of these factors were used by almost every one of them. They are as follows:
http://www.radicalremission.com/
There is no straight line to be drawn. That would be most satisfying and we'd all be significantly better by now.
Only that straight lines drawn and a century of research in CVD and cancer, most with such a disease aren't better by now (with the exception of 3 well defined cancers). Just a 1-3% improvement of 5-year mortality, I never would be satisfied with.
You have cfs and you're actually sticking up for Mickel therapy?
No I don't advocate anything, particularly not self-help approaches, which could be had much reasonably priced with other avenues. However, I don't deny everyone's right to tell their own story. However weird it may sound. Because I myself have such a incomprehensible remission story, where a multi-factorial approach to a purely physical CVD brought it about.
With a much less researched condition like ME, and me having realized how research in pharmaceutical compounds is set up (just for profit and a 1-3% improvement in 5-year mortality in major chronic diseases), I do stay open-minded to all options. And respect everyone's decision not to.
In the end each will be the responsible for one's decision. And in my case I'm simply glad to have rejected standard medical procedures against CVD, and followed anecdotal evidence instead. An other would have to be glad with his decision to follow the standard medical procedures, and the evidenced 1-3% 5-year mortality reduction only.