Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: Right Name, Real Treatments

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
Likes
3,431
White also says:
"In the meantime, clinicians may be reassured that two treatments are moderately effective, safe, and cost-effective, and that patients can be given substantial hope of improvement—and sometimes recovery.[27]"
 

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
Likes
4,802
Where has accountability gone?

I have to wonder if ultimately the cavalier psych-clamations and steady stream of half-truths, at the expense of so many, can only be challenged - and righted - in the courts.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Likes
23,086
I put a comment up on the site.
I didn't know that Fluge and Mella considered the Rituximab study inconclusive. Is it because the primary endpoint (self reported fatigue after 3 months) was negative? Or is it because there is no biomarker? Or something else?
 
Messages
213
Likes
712
I didn't know that Fluge and Mella considered the Rituximab study inconclusive. Is it because the primary endpoint (self reported fatigue after 3 months) was negative? Or is it because there is no biomarker? Or something else?
I think mainly because of a) the small sample size and b) the fact that the primary endpoint was negative, as you pointed out (although that was because they didn't know at that point how long it would take most patients to respond).
 
Messages
5,256
Likes
32,033
I think mainly because of a) the small sample size and b) the fact that the primary endpoint was negative, as you pointed out (although that was because they didn't know at that point how long it would take most patients to respond).
For something of this significance a single study would not be considered conclusive for all sorts of reasons but those are the key ones here, I think.
 

halcyon

Senior Member
Messages
2,482
Likes
6,001
For some reason, the Twilight Zone theme music is playing in my head.

"Imagine, if you will, a US website posting an article by a British psychiatrist in the rheumatology section with physiotherapy recommendations to treat a neurological disease." :ill:
 

snowathlete

Senior Member
Messages
5,374
Likes
14,600
Location
UK
They will continue to attempt such damage control even in the face of increasing scientific evidence. It is their status and their salaries at stake here as science errodes their theories, exposing their weak foundations. They have shown over a long period that their own interest mean much more to them than the suffering of patients.

The good news is that as the biological evidence mounts up, their ideology looks increasingly desperate, cynical and irrelevant, and no amount of damage control can prevent that.

So now both Simon Wessely and Peter White say they prefer "chronic fatigue syndrome" to "systemic exertion intolerance disease" (no major surprise to some of us of course).
I'm really delighted to hear them say it because it tells me that they see the name change as damaging to them. They've been struck (metaphorically speaking) and they are saying "Ouch!"