• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Chalder and colleagues: Emotional arousal in CFS

flybro

Senior Member
Messages
706
Location
pluto
The thread is not a waste, it's a record, something they always had and controlled, but now we have our own record.

It might be good if these crap research papers could have a code in the title of threads, or have own forum heading?
 

Cinders66

Senior Member
Messages
494
How much did this cost? Have to wonder if we need these health psychologicists, their wages, their research money , could go on better things within NHS
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
This reminded me of the game we used to play when we were kids, try not to laugh. The one where you have to keep a serious face whilst the other person does stupid stuff and pulls faces at you. It brought back such fond memories I just played it with my daughter who was unable to withhold her laughter.

I just played the tried and tested technique of fart and poo noises and said wee wee a few times.

I remember how hard this was as a kid trying not to laugh, infact one time i laughed so much a bit of pee came out.

What does that say about me?

Perhaps I too am a scientist?
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
The conclusion - 'This is the first evidence from an experimental study of greater emotional suppression in individuals with CFS compared to healthy controls, from both self-report and observer ratings.

Surely they should be concluding that CBT would be pointless on these people as the evidence suggests they just want to mind their own business?
 

Glycon

World's Most Dangerous Hand Puppet
Messages
299
Location
ON, Canada
I'd say this has all the hallmarks of a study dreamed up for a PhD student to do, rather than for any medically valid reason. Nice easy experiment, lots of simple things to measure, lots of vaguely related studies to summarise in the introduction to show you've done your reading research, and a handy supply of dupes in the queue at a couple of psych. based CFS clinics waiting for 'treatment' for their fatigue.

...

Suppression of emotions is found to be higher in CFS patients.

Huh??? Well of course it is, they've been referred to a psych. based service for an illness they experience as a physical illness. Of course they're going to hide their emotions so as not to be further misdiagnosed. And they don't know the purpose of the experiment...

So... Does the study even differentiate between lower emotional expressiveness and suppression of emotions?

Because the two are certainly not the same...
 

JohnCB

Immoderate
Messages
351
Location
England
Beliefs About Emotions Scale.
The Beliefs About Emotions
Scale (BES; Rimes & Chalder, 2010) assesses beliefs about the
unacceptability of experiencing or expressing negative emotions.
This is a 12-item scale that includes items such as “It is a sign of
weakness if I have miserable thoughts” and “To be acceptable to
others, I must keep any difficulties or negative feelings to myself.”
Response options ranged from 0 (totally disagree )to 6 (totally
agree) Higher scores indicate greater endorsement of unhelpful
beliefs about emotions. Rimes and Chalder (2010) found that
participants with CFS have significantly higher scores on this
questionnaire than healthy participants. In the current study the
scale had good internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha .87).

I don't see how it is appropriate to use a questionnaire that is known to produce different results for PwCFS and healthies in a study that is looking for differences between PwCFS and controls. Is this BES as reliable as the CFQ?

I don't really see that healthy controls are the right comparison group. There should have been a group with equivalent illness burden to provide a valid comparison, surely?
 

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
The more I see of Chalder's work, the less I understand what she's trying to prove. Can she really think this study is valid or useful?
 

Hip

Senior Member
Messages
17,844
Another thread filled with the rather predictable criticisms of ME/CFS patients. I really think that a lot of patients do not understand their own disease all that well at the neuropsychological level.


Emotional symptoms are a major component of ME/CFS, and in my view are under-investigated. If you read the Canadian Consensus Criteria, you will see that there are three different areas of emotional dysfunction in ME/CFS (though a patient may not suffer from all three):

Emotional lability (unstable or random emotional responses).

Emotional overload may be unduly stressful (many patients report that they find emotional discord or social disharmony very stressful and unpleasant).

Emotional flattening (also known as blunted affect; this is where your emotions have largely dried up, and so your mind only responds weakly to emotional stimuli such as films that would normally create a robust emotional response).

These emotional dysfunctions of ME/CFS can be quite debilitating (I find the emotional overload and sensitivity to social disharmony particularly problematic), and deserve to be better investigated and better understood biomedically (with the emphasis on understanding via biomedical investigation, not via the mumbo-jumbo "all in the mind" psychogenic ideas of ME/CFS).


I suffer from both emotional overload (sensitivity to social disharmony), and also the emotional flattening. I personally think that the emotional flattening is one of the contributing factors to why ME/CFS patients don't tend to find themselves in relationships. I used to be quite romantic, but I find the ME/CFS emotional flattening kills off all romantic thought, such that in my present state, I don't feel that I even want a relationship (low libido I think also plays a role in this).

I have found some supplements and drugs (see this post) that temporarily bring back some emotional responses, but unfortunately their effects are only transient. I also notice that vitamin B2 seems to reduce my sensitivity to social disharmony a little bit.


Interestingly enough, as the suspected enterovirus that triggered my ME/CFS spread to over 30 friends and family, after a few years with this virus, quite a few infected people reported that their emotions felt weakened — and this was also something I observed myself in these people (ie, independent to their comments, I noticed myself how many of them had dried up somewhat emotionally).

I think there should be more research into how enteroviruses such as coxsackievirus B and echovirus can affect emotional processing and emotional health in the general population, not just in ME/CFS.
 
Last edited:

mfairma

Senior Member
Messages
205
Another thread filled with the rather predictable criticisms of ME/CFS patients. I really think that a lot of patients do not understand their own disease all that well at the neuropsychological level.

Bollocks. This is just another in a long string of terrible psychiatric "studies" that attempt to mask subjectivity with seemingly objective instruments. I'm baffled that any patient could think these loons have anything to offer, especially after the revelations on PACE. Even if they weren't using lousy definitions -- I haven't checked, but the assumption seems reasonable -- and the study actually made sense, do you really think these people are capable of performing a study not fundamentally shaped by bias? My incredulity meter has topped out for the day.
 

Glycon

World's Most Dangerous Hand Puppet
Messages
299
Location
ON, Canada
Another thread filled with the rather predictable criticisms of ME/CFS patients. I really think that a lot of patients do not understand their own disease all that well at the neuropsychological level.

Bollocks. This is just another in a long string of terrible psychiatric "studies" that attempt to mask subjectivity with seemingly objective instruments.

You are both right! :D
 

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
Hello Hip,

Maybe you misunderstood the basis of my criticisms of the study. I think you are wrong to assume we don't understand our condition. I am fully aware of the emotional dysfunctions you spell out as part of the Canadian definition, and agree that the biochemical / neurological effects are worthy of study.

My criticisms are purely on the quality of the study itself which, as I spelled out, is so flawed as to be meaningless. I won't spell it all out again, you can read what I said.

I am also suspicious of the motivation behind the study, since it may be used to feed in to the way they do their distorted version of CBT in order, as they see it, to more effectively disabuse us of our ' false illness beliefs'.

And I don't like the way they conclude that these supposed emotional symptoms are a contributory factor to our other symptoms, feeding into their awful biopsychosocial mumbo jumbo. In other words implying that emotional lability is a cause, not an effect of ME.
 

mfairma

Senior Member
Messages
205
@trishrhymes, yes. Exactly.

I was trying to think of some analogies earlier, but they all came out a bit crude, so I'll only give one. My apologies in advance.

"According to new research from researcher B. Cosby, young women in the entertainment industry can benefit from individual career mentorship."

The problem is not necessarily that ME does not have some effect on emotion, but that anecdotal discussion of studies put out by people with vested interests legitimizes and distracts from the bias that gave rise to the discussion. Further, as Trish pointed out, the way Hip might discuss emotional effects is very different from the intent of the authors.
 

mfairma

Senior Member
Messages
205
Yes, that was one of the more correct ones. Alternatively, "Health Benefits of Urine: A Blinded Study on Topical Administration," by Robert Kelly.
 

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
2. Choice of 'emotional stimulus:

'Materials and Measures Emotion induction. A 9-min clip from a British Broadcasting Corporation documentary called “Britain’s Homecare Scandal,” originally shown in 2003 as part of the “Panorama” series, was used to elicit an emotional response. It shows scenes of reduced quality of care given to older adults by homecare services. The film clip was piloted on 15 individuals (seven CFS participants and eight healthy control participants). It produced an increase in ratings of emotional distress including anger, sadness, and disgust. This complex emotional response was considered to have appropriate ecological validity.'

Huh???? So you're comparing emotional reactions and suppression of emotions in healthy and sick people and you choose a stimulus that is likely to have much higher emotional resonance with the sick people who may already have encountered difficulties with care services, or be concerned about their care needs in future. How is that a valid comparison.

:aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh:

Ohh this is so unethical and tormenting to a patient group who is often needing homecare services but cant get them to use something like that in this research which of cause the control group wouldnt react as badly to this, how can this be like a proper control group when you use stimuli which wont even affect them so much?

Highly unethical too when its well known that stress isnt good for ME/CFS people either and can just run us down further.


Trudy Chandler, you are a sadist.

This study is almost like showing those who have PTSD from a war war images for the sake of research