Mental health treatments treat mental health conditions.
But ME/CFS involves both mental and physical symptoms, so is in part a mental condition. Brain fog is mental, sound sensitivity is mental, emotional lability or emotional sensitivity is mental, the anxiety disorder that some patients have is mental (although this is considered a comorbid condition).
Throughout her story she basically says that following Phoenix Rising kept her from trying the therapy that would cure her. Also there is the accusation that Phoenix Rising attacks people who post recovery stories.
But that's an accurate account of what happens on PR, when someone posts a story of a ME/CFS recovery from a psychological treatment, or from a body-mind treatment such as yoga — they get scorn poured upon their story.
I do not see sueami's article as slamming PR; she is just pointing out what happens here. And her article is something we should take note of, rather than pour further scorn on.
If some very small minority of ME/CFS patients are benefiting from, or even recovering, by means of psychological therapies, is it ethical to take an opposing stance on such therapies on this forum? I know not everyone on this forum takes an opposing stance, as is evident even in this thread; but many do.
In my analysis, there are competing imperatives operating here. On the one hand, I think more or less everybody on this forum, myself included, is strongly against the ideas put forward by the Wessely School, that ME/CFS is "all in the mind". I think we all agree that this view of ME/CFS is fundamentally wrong, and causes a huge amount of damage, both to the way doctors think about and treat ME/CFS patients, and to biomedical ME/CFS researchers trying to get grants to study the physiological aspects of this disease.
So the basic imperative that I think nearly everybody follows here is: stop the Wessely School!
However, because of this very imperative, the small minority of ME/CFS patients who do derive benefit from a psychological therapy get caught up in the crossfire, and may be seen as traitors to the cause.
Yet no ME/CFS should be put off trying a treatment, even a psychological therapy, that may help them. That is the other imperative: much of this forum is focused on helping ME/CFS patient find effective treatments.
So how do you balance these two competing imperatives?
For me it is appalling that ME/CFS is portrayed as an "all in the mind" condition, and I fight vigorously against such ideas. I think even in ME/CFS patients such as sueami (whose ME/CFS was started by a viral infection), the disease is still primarily driven by physiological factors. However, in some patients, locked-in mental stress may conceivably be affecting physiology, and once this stress is released, physiology may be altered in such as way as to then clear viral infections, or quell autoimmunity. So we don't want to discount this.
We don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater on this one.
The bathwater is the Wessely School. The baby is the fact that a small minority of patients — I would think a very small number — may potentially benefit from psychological therapies.
I am not offering any answers here, but rather just analyzing the situation.