They can now be found in the library.
Personality Features and Personality Disorders in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Populat
- Thread starter V99
- Start date
This story could have been a lot worse!
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients Grow Weary of Doubt
Doctors, Patients Roiled By CDC Study Linking Personality Disorders to Chronic Fatigue Syndromehttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMo...ersonality-disorders/story?id=12102316&page=1
Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Patients Grow Weary of Doubt
Doctors, Patients Roiled By CDC Study Linking Personality Disorders to Chronic Fatigue Syndromehttp://abcnews.go.com/Health/MindMo...ersonality-disorders/story?id=12102316&page=1
urbantravels
disjecta membra
- Messages
- 1,333
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
Why on earth is ABC reporting on this now as if it's new information?
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I thought it was a decent article.
I wish they'd pushed Unger harder.
I'm not sure if I've mentioned it here, but it looks like it was the Journal which came up with the 'Is Chronic Fatigue a personality disorder?' headline in a news release.
Moderator: Removed inappropriate comment.
It's possible.
I wish they'd pushed Unger harder.
I'm not sure if I've mentioned it here, but it looks like it was the Journal which came up with the 'Is Chronic Fatigue a personality disorder?' headline in a news release.
Moderator: Removed inappropriate comment.
It's possible.
Because the editors wanted actual study authors to comment (it seemed fair since the reporter's angle was the patients and doctors were outraged) and they couldn't get any of them to respond or agree to an interview or anything, so the editors kept delaying the article. Evidently, they finally settled for comments from the acting director of the CDC's CFS team (who isn't an author of the study in question, although she "stands behind" it).
urbantravels
disjecta membra
- Messages
- 1,333
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
Is that a guess, or based on inside info? Because I'll buy it, in a hot minute. Poor little study, abandoned by its authors...
based on this: http://www.dailystrength.org/c/Chronic_Fatigue_Syndrome/forum/10893915-abc-newsmikaela-conley
This community is saying some of them were interviewed and when they called to check, they were told the eds were holding it up waiting for comment from study authors. No study author comments in the article, so simple deduction shows it was likely no study author was reached for comment. Just Unger.
It's obvious that they (study authors) cannot defend this logically. But some of these ppl aren't logical (others just dragged along for the ride, perhaps).
Not sure why no one wanted to comment on their handiwork, though. Maybe since Reeves was in another dept (but no actual announcements of this) they (ABC) didn't know how to reach him, but surely Jones would be happy to opine? Or Jones is only ok with this when he thinks he's only talking to doctors (in the journals), not the public?
urbantravels
disjecta membra
- Messages
- 1,333
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
Oh ho ho. Thanks for the link to the thread. Verrrrry interesting.
Why wouldn't the researchers want to defend their fine, fine handiwork? Because they know it's indefensible, and with each passing day more science is being done that demonstrates it's indefensible?
Why wouldn't the researchers want to defend their fine, fine handiwork? Because they know it's indefensible, and with each passing day more science is being done that demonstrates it's indefensible?
oh, I know it's indefensible, and any sensible halfway-informed person knows it's indefensible... but I thought at least a few of the authors were totally impervious to information of any kind, totally mentally unreachable like a member of a cult. If MRI abnormalities didn't convince them, why would XMRV? Simply because the virus is making the news and their house of cards is going to collapse?
I guess that's it.
So it really boils down to what's exciting to news people? That's the key to our freedom from oppression by an all-powerful health authority listening to a house of cards? Wow, we live in a scary world.
We have to do something to change this so no one else is dependent on the whims of news reporters for essential medical treatment.
I guess that's it.
So it really boils down to what's exciting to news people? That's the key to our freedom from oppression by an all-powerful health authority listening to a house of cards? Wow, we live in a scary world.
We have to do something to change this so no one else is dependent on the whims of news reporters for essential medical treatment.
what I'm trying to say is that there's been enough science to debunk the psychococial/(bio)psychosocial model for about 50 years. XMRV is exciting and potentially very useful both as an explainer of the ultimate cause and for treatment, but not necessary as a debunker. Intermediate pathology is all that is needed for debunking, and we've had that for decades.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Sorry dolphin. I've just deleted a load more. I'm running out of one's I want to delete!
I think that some concpetions of the biopsychosocial model are imporssible to debunk. There truisms which are then used to justify all sorts of quackery.
I think that psychological and social factors often will affect the way allmost all illnesses develop, disable and are treated. But that's not to say that we're at the point where these factors can be appropriatly treated by medical staff. Attempts to do so easily lead to prejudices and abuse - which is what we've seen with CFS, the illness where the biopsychosocial model of illness has had the most impact. It seems to me that most CFS patients are not grateful for the pioneering help they've recieved in this regard.
I think that some concpetions of the biopsychosocial model are imporssible to debunk. There truisms which are then used to justify all sorts of quackery.
I think that psychological and social factors often will affect the way allmost all illnesses develop, disable and are treated. But that's not to say that we're at the point where these factors can be appropriatly treated by medical staff. Attempts to do so easily lead to prejudices and abuse - which is what we've seen with CFS, the illness where the biopsychosocial model of illness has had the most impact. It seems to me that most CFS patients are not grateful for the pioneering help they've recieved in this regard.
Snow Leopard
Hibernating
- Messages
- 5,902
- Location
- South Australia
If it's unfalsifiable, then it's pseudoscience at best.
CAA statement
http://www.cfids.org/about/whats-new.asp
Good to see criticism of the "empiric" criteria.
http://www.cfids.org/about/whats-new.asp
Response is at: http://www.cfids.org/pdf/response-110810-study.pdf
Good to see criticism of the "empiric" criteria.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean to say by this?
By the psychosocial/(bio)psychosocial models I mean the opinion that the most important factor in creating or sustaining "CFS" is thought to be bad focus, bad attitute, and bad behavior. You cannot mean that patients should be grateful for pioneering help for this (changing imaginary badness in the patient to "cure" ME), unless you're being sarcastic.
It's true that all diseases have impact from psychosocial factors (secondary depression, loss of job, whatever), but the problem in ME is not that regular medical personnel are trying to treat psychosocial factors and this results in prejudice and abuse. In the USA, nurses and PA's are specially trained to provide psychosocial support to those with diseases (they obviously don't know how to handle supposed MUS). Psysicians unfortunately are often not trained in support even for those with recognized diseases.
But anyway the problem is psychiatrists who think they have a corner on patients who are thought to have MUS and make up all sorts of theory-driven balderdash and journals actually publish the junk, and governments choose to believe those fairy tales instead of actual science--which is actually available. As you know, of course.
The problem is the irrational and unsubstantiatable opinion that psychosocial things are the main factor instead of just a side complication.
Wait, I think maybe I just figured out what you meant by "not grateful." Either not grateful to the early science (thinking XMRV is the main physical evidence), or not grateful to CAA.
Pretty good letter. They might have included additional criticisms such that having no control group is a serious methodological flaw, the CDC's own work has shown their criteria to be unstable as they note patients who have "CFS" at one time do not necessarily have it later, etc. But I loved the way they characterized the CFSAC. It sounds very official and not like a body which should be ignored. And the criticism about wasting money on deepening misunderstanding instead of doing lab research is perfect.
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Given the number of typos I managed to include, I'm not surprised.
All manner of different interpretations can fit under the classification of a biopsychosocial approach to medicine. I know CFS patients are most likely to have been exposed to the CFS=hysteria approach though.
Good to see the CAA's response. I wonder which media organisations approached them. More than ABC?
It's quite a good letter - credit where it's due. (If it had been AfME they'd have called the study "interesting..." and manage to say it was "too much emphasis" or some such crap, while in the next sentence asking for more CBT therapists...) I'm still not sold on whether the CAA really get the issues overall though, from the thread on their management advice.
I'm not 100% sure which thread that is but know I took part in some threads earlier in the year. I think part of the problem is a lot of physicians that they rely on for medical articles don't get the issue e.g. are too into exercise programs, are terrified about what would happen if patients don't exercise. Perhaps in time people will learn.