justinreilly
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,498
- Location
- NYC (& RI)
The current CEO of wikipedia is keen on getting underrepresented views up on the site (at least she says) so at some point we need to contact her to plead our case.
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.
"Although classified by the World Health Organization under Diseases of the nervous system, the etiology (cause or origin) of CFS is unknown, and multiple psychological and physiological factors may contribute to the development and maintenance of symptoms. There is no diagnostic laboratory test or biomarker for CFS."
This is in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia article found by using the search words "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome." I don't know about you, but I really take issue with "psychological factors may contribute to the development.....yada yada."
Does anybody know how we can get this taken out? It's inaccurate at best and serves to perpetuate the myth that somehow this is our fault at worst.
In addition, it seems that a lot of the other information is out of date, including too-favorable reviews of CBT and GET.
The unfortunate fact is that there is as yet no proven cause of CFS and there are no consensus biomarkers of the condition(s) currently known by this name. There are many proposed causes, and many proposed biomarkers, from circulating blood volume to immune cell reactivities, but nothing close to consensus has emerged. There is a perceived divide between those who feel CFS is a purely "mental" disorder and those who feel it is a purely "physical" discorder. In my view, Wessely and colleagues straddle this divide in a reflection of the uncertainties and a desire not to rule out potentially fruitful avenues of research. That is, their multi-faceted approach and unwillingness to reject theories out-of-hand seems to give a good overview of the state of knowledge today; it's why I added their work as a citation. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 16:23, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
I can't believe people use wiki for information?!?! If you think this is the only totaly false information there I have a bridge to sell you. If you site wiki as a source for any information on a reseach paper you'll be laughed out onto the street. Stop getting on the site and giving them any kind of traffic, IT'S A HUGE JOKE FROM TOP TO BOTTOM.
I can't believe people use wiki for information?!?!
Got news for you, buddy. The WP article is undoubtedly among the most influential sources for the general public's understanding of our health issues.
The CFS and CFS Treatment wikipedia pages really need to be edited to include the rituximab study results. I wish I had the energy but hopefully one of us has. Mentioning the apology by the Norway Directorate of Health could also be part of the controversy section and page.