I just want to point out that the article was written by Alex Howard and not by CAA. I don't know if CAA agrees with everything in that article, maybe they missed some of the details when they hurried to publish the March edition of Link, I can imagine with a small staff and a big schedule that is possible. So before people go off collecting sticks and stones maybe we should ask the CAA for a formal clarification here. Is this article their new position on CFS? Is the article an attempt to address a problem that they believe may be present in a subset of patients? Or did this just slide in under the radar and they did not catch the subtle implications of parts of the content, nor appreciate how the CFS audience would react? Or are they simply trying to show many different approaches to CFS treatment and the opinions in the article are not necessarily theirs? (in which case a disclaimer would be a good idea)
Meanwhile, given that CAA in my opinion is the major research and advocacy group out there that understands and believes in 'systems biology', I can understand why they might believe we need help with pacing. If you approach CFS as a complex systems melt-down then an integrative approach may be essential to the solution. In other words, in a systems problem each pathology can influence other pathologies. So neurological, immunological, nutritional, endocrine, and other problems including our pacing and activity and thinking processes all interact. That means managing stress and pacing may be a critical part of recovery for some of us, along with other treatments. But what must be clear in all of this type of 'systems' discussion is that behavioral-oriented therapies are very unlikely to work out well by themselves. That is a point that probably should have been made much more clear.
One other point - if CFS involves neural damage, then rehabilitative neuro-cognitive therapies might be very helpful for us, as they are helpful with stroke or brain injury patients. I am not saying that Howard's approach is the right approach, we need to see studies to prove that, but just pointing out that in theory some type of neuro-cognitive therapy might help CFS patients.
Meanwhile, given that CAA in my opinion is the major research and advocacy group out there that understands and believes in 'systems biology', I can understand why they might believe we need help with pacing. If you approach CFS as a complex systems melt-down then an integrative approach may be essential to the solution. In other words, in a systems problem each pathology can influence other pathologies. So neurological, immunological, nutritional, endocrine, and other problems including our pacing and activity and thinking processes all interact. That means managing stress and pacing may be a critical part of recovery for some of us, along with other treatments. But what must be clear in all of this type of 'systems' discussion is that behavioral-oriented therapies are very unlikely to work out well by themselves. That is a point that probably should have been made much more clear.
One other point - if CFS involves neural damage, then rehabilitative neuro-cognitive therapies might be very helpful for us, as they are helpful with stroke or brain injury patients. I am not saying that Howard's approach is the right approach, we need to see studies to prove that, but just pointing out that in theory some type of neuro-cognitive therapy might help CFS patients.