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 (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To register, simply click the Register button at the top right.
I know, it's so frustrating. Sometimes, I fantasise:
--- fantasy fades......
Well, it makes me feel better.
The whole of idea of scientific publication is built around Peer Review, where your work is scrutinised by your peers before it is accepted for publication. In many fields this can be a bloody process, with researchers trying to undermine their rival's papers with hostile reviews. But the results is fierce scrutiny and better quality work. In the field of ME/CFS, peer review seems to be no more than a slap on the back from your mates.
The reality is that nothing will change and research like this will continue to be published. It makes me want to weep.
Thanks for highlighting that and summarising it. I might read another time. Might be useful for anybody thinking of replying (I'm still working on a full article (on something else ME/CFS-related) that is taking longer than planned (letters are much less work!) and I have another draft letter on another topic to look at).Check out this: http://brainblogger.com/2010/10/22/the-personality-of-chronic-fatigue
A psychology blogger blogged on the article, got lots of comments, and became convinced that there was more to the ME/CFS story than had known. Said the comments were educating. Not sure if these cover much ground that hasn't been gone over. Bogus inclusion criteria, inappropriate surveys for use in diseased population, comparing sick people to well instead of other sick people, publishing with a particular disease name, wasting resources by not studying important things. Oh, and wasting others' resources because they have to spend time on contradicting bad studies instead of studying important things.
I must be reading too much psychobabble these days as I didn't recall it when I had finished.I wasn't sure how to take that paper because it talked about good theory of gut and other pathology, but I felt it gave an inordinately strong role to psychological disturbance.
This article was picked up by Medical News Today:
Forgot to say: the heading is, "Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome A Personality Disorder?"This article was picked up by Medical News Today:
One can rate the piece/research out of five stars or put a comment (no comments so far).
Tired and Tested:
The cause of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, or ME, is unknown. However, it is more prevalent in people with a skewed personality disorder. In tests, 29 per cent of ME sufferers had at least one mental disorder, such as paranoia, compared with just seven per cent of physically well people. The US study appeared in the journal Psychotherapy and Psychosomatics.
This paper references a paper Wessely co-authored which has results showing that personality features were not predictive of CFS. You can get the whole thing here:
It reads like they were hoping to replicate the Kato results on emotional instability and chronic fatigue (not syndrome), but didn't. By some measures of neuroticism, neurotic people were less likely to get CFS than non-neurotic people. The more I look in to the details of these studies, the more they all seem like pointless white noise. The faith they have in these questionnaires is just peculiar.
One person (not sure they want to be named?) has sent me a PM to say they found the PDQ-4.
Also the scoring (so one can see what one score oneself if one wants).
This should help people, particularly novices like myself, to get a grip a bit more on the area of personality disorders:
As one can see, the files are quite small.
How this study was reviewed in one article kind of made me nuts - the headline was "CFS associated with personality disorders"