But if it is seen as a condition that can be treated with non-pharmacological treatments, there will be less investment in research. Certainly drug companies will be less inclined to invest money.
I'm not sure if you're saying that we should act as if CBT and GET are even worse than they are, in the hope of attracting more funding, or just saying that the emphasis on CBT and GET research has stunted other potentially more useful avenues. I've not seen anyone here disagree with the latter.
"Boom" and "bust" are pejorative terms that are also a bit inexact.
Are you saying if you kept increasing your activity levels, you wouldn't get an increase of symptoms (not just fatigue).
I'm still not sure then why you don't increase your activity levels as per this program.
If I increase my activity levels, my fatigue gets gradually worse. Suffering more muscle pain, trouble with concentration, etc. It just all gets progressively worse in relation to the ammount of activity. When I was first ill and pushing away, I was vomiting, minor halucinations, etc. I never got a sudden onset of a 'bust' though (or whatever term you might prefer). I just got progressively worse until I took the time to rest up more, and then my level of fatigue would gradually reduce.
I don't see why it would be difficult to understand why I would not continue to increase my acitivity levels, seeing as it seemed to bring no beneift, and only made life progressively more difficult.
Well if all you get is a bit more fatigue when you increase your activity levels above a certain point, but no other symptoms, I'm not sure why you don't do.
Just because they say that fatigue is the only symptom patients might face, doesn't mean that's a fact in M.E.
I think you've gotten confused between the interpretation I was providing of the GET protocol you posted, and my description of my own experiences with GET.
Maybe I don't have special M.E. - just lowly CFS. It's not terribly important to me.
Having less of a risk than AZT is a strawman argument. That's not the only possible treatment that could ever possibly be offered to us.
Also just because they describe it in such a way, doesn't mean that's the reality. I think people with M.E. would find if they keep increasing their activity levels, that they would face more symptoms than a little fatigue.
But as I say, you are free to do it.
But if you don't do it, I think perhaps the reason you won't is because you do think there is a risk of some sort. As you say, the treatment doesn't involve drugs so why won't you do it if there is there isn't any significant risk associated with it?
You say you look at issues in the abstract. But that may not be the best way to look at them. You can get another view of them by looking at your own situation. So I think it is a reasonable question to ask you why you won't do it. You might then realise that you do think there is a risk and you are being inaccurate in your claims about the program.
That's what patients can bring to discussion. They can see flaws that others may not. It is very seductive to suggest we can all just keep increasing our activity levels back to normal. And healthy people can be taken in by this.
It would only be straw manning if I'd said that you thought AZT was preferable to GET.
As I said, the protocol seemed to say that patients should not conitnue to increase levels of exercie when their symptoms worsened ("If they complain of fatigue in response to a new level of exercise, they should be advised to remain at the same level for an extra week, rather than progressing the duration, and to increase the exercise when the symptoms regress.")
I've explained, in several posts, why I do not think GET is a worthwhile therapy for myself. You've quoted from parts of them, so I know you've seen them.
I don't know why you think I believe that there is no risk to GET. It's not what I think, or what I have said. I do think that there are big differences in the potential dangers of different conceptions of GET though, and that one of the big dangers of GET is that it can play to people's prejudices about CFS, and lead to them promoting especially dangerous versions of GET. Even a sensible version of GET will still bring with it some risks though.
I feel like you're arguing with an imagined proponent of the psychological lobby, rather than responding to what I've actually written. This is rather disconcerting.