Maybe some other people know what you are talking about but I'm afraid I'm confused - what video is it? If you post a link, that'd help us and/or tell us which message in the thread you're replying to.
-
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.
Personality Features and Personality Disorders in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Populat
- Thread starter V99
- Start date
- Messages
- 5
I am sorry. I also have ADHD, both types. I didn't notice it was Muffin's post on Sept. 15, 2009, at approximately 0500, to which I was replying- believe it's on page 23 of this blog. I don't know how to cut and paste, but it's a youTube video about XMRV. Maybe you could post it in response to my reply? Many Thanks. CFScandy
Thanks for that headmaster scene!
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.
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.
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).
One tit-bit I notice immediately: The Editor of the site brainblogger.com (not the author of the blog article), Shaheen E Lakhan, is the lead author for the review paper, http://www.forums.aboutmecfs.org/showthread.php?8092-Gut-Inflammation-In-CFS
Thanks to anyone who replied.
That's interesting; I hadn't noticed that the editor had written that. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. 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.
I wrote a lot of comments on the brain blogger page. If Fedup was from here, good job. "What are you going to do about it?" was a good question.
I wrote a lot of comments on the brain blogger page. If Fedup was from here, good job. "What are you going to do about it?" was a good question.
I must be reading too much psychobabble these days as I didn't recall it when I had finished.
This article was picked up by Medical News Today:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/207006.php
One can rate the piece/research out of five stars or put a comment (no comments so far).
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/207006.php
One can rate the piece/research out of five stars or put a comment (no comments so far).
- Messages
- 13,774
I noticed this too... it's now saved in a file I have for this stuff. It plays rather well to the concerns I had about this sort of work. Wo-hoo! - We were right to say that this would play to the prejudices of the medical community!
I really need to get my arse in gear here.
Forgot to say: the heading is, "Is Chronic Fatigue Syndrome A Personality Disorder?"
Xandoff
Michael
- Messages
- 302
- Location
- Northern Vermont
Did any one catch the term "unexplained unwellness "? 294 people with unexplained unwellness were used. It's unbelievably unintelligent.
Bill Reeves is desperate. Maybe he should meet up with Uma Thurmond? aka *ill Bill
Bill Reeves is desperate. Maybe he should meet up with Uma Thurmond? aka *ill Bill
lancelot
Senior Member
- Messages
- 324
- Location
- southern california
That is disgusting to see in this day and age!! Bill reeves, how do you live with yourself?
- Messages
- 13,774
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:
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/47/68/HarveyPriorpsychandCFS.pdf
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.
http://www.kcl.ac.uk/content/1/c6/01/47/68/HarveyPriorpsychandCFS.pdf
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.
- Messages
- 1,446
They don't really have faith in those studies - they are just a way of spinning out the useless psycho research and psycho-spin.
Wessely and the gang don't "do" science or medicine, they don't "do" holism. What they "do" is manipulation of language - spin and double speak - they don't take their 'research' seriously - so why should we?
Cort
Phoenix Rising Founder
- Messages
- 7,384
How this study was reviewed in one article kind of made me nuts - the headline was "CFS associated with personality disorders" - but 71% of the sample didn't have a personality disorder. That kind of suggested to me that they were barking up the wrong tree. If I was serious about CFS - this would be the last study I would do on personality disorders.
- Messages
- 13,774
These links are now down. I said we should save them... but now can't find them on my hard-drive. I've got print outs, so don't need digital copies, but hopefully someone has them somewhere. Might be worth putting in the library?
- Messages
- 13,774
Given how the study was designed and presented, this sort of coverage is utterly unsurprising. The people behind this study don't seem terribly concerned about how their work might affect patients. Wankers imo.
Nielk
Senior Member
- Messages
- 6,970
I think we should devise a study that will show the personality disorders among the "experts" who concocted
these skewed studies to begin with.
Where would they show up on the personality scale? I would tend to think that they have major problems to
be wasting their time on such rubbish.
these skewed studies to begin with.
Where would they show up on the personality scale? I would tend to think that they have major problems to
be wasting their time on such rubbish.