I have told someone once that they did not have CFS.
Now before everyone jumps on me, allow me to explain that my opinion was expressly solicited, and the sole symptom I was informed of was swollen lymph nodes without explanation.
I confirmed that there were no other symptoms, expressed my sincere condolances and empathized with the hunt for an explanation, but kindly informed her that her symptoms do not match the criteria for CFS.
I believe it would have been unkind for me to do otherwise. The answer was understandably disappointing for her because she was looking for hte explanation to her condition, but I would have done her a disservice to "lead her on" so to speak by pretending it could still be CFS.
My approach is to generally assume that those who say they have CFS have CFS. I can't imagine anyone
wanting a disease of this name so in my mind that rules out any attention-getters, and while I'm certain there are some who are misdiagnosed, frankly that just isn't my job to discern.
On the other hand, there's no issue iwth recommending people get tested for other things. You aren't necessarily suggesting they have that issue
instead of CFS, as many have found it is common to find other issues piling on so to speak. BUt if htat person gets something checked out, finds that it's a problem, and then discovers the solution fixes all their symptoms then YAY for them! Seriously, in my book CFS is something you want to wake up one morning and discover it was a misdiagnosis, and if someone has that experience then I want to congratulate them. We should be the
last to fault one of our own if it turns out they had something else. Get in the chatroom and throw them a party!
For those who have achieved remarkable recovery, personally I don't really care of you do or don't have CFS, I'm just plain happy for you. But recognize that for those fighting to get well with limited external and internal resources, if you present a treatment then your symptoms and possibly even your diagnosis
will be scrutinized, and unfortunately that has to come with the territory IMO. See, we're forced to partially or in some cases completely fill the role of physician for ourselves. And as such when we're evaluating a treatment based on anecdotal evidence it is imperative that we study the patient history in order to make a proper decision on whether or not it's worth attempting, instead of the dozen+ other things we were going to try next.
I understand that on this site you are not allowed to question anyone's diagnosis, and I believe that's a good rule. I also believe that it's great that it's okay to ask people about their symptoms and history without their automatic defense switching on. Lets keep things that way, shall we?