Happy New Year, good people!...
I have promised certain people (and myself) to rest more, but I think I've been pretty good so far..
, so:
Andrew, in response to Jenny Spotila:
The information is on your page for health professionals under Clinical Care for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome. The most harmful aspect of your information are: 1. The article by White, and 2. the lack of adequate warnings and guidelines about preventing post exertion malaise.
Fresh eyes:
So, I haven't gotten the impression that the CAA has any plans to take this document down, or change it. Anyone else?
Yeah, I was going to point that out too, Andrew... thanks for refocusing the issue. And no, F.e., I haven't seen anything yet about that. Just downplaying its prominence (which they're wrong about, as Andrew pointed out). I guess we'll have to contact Jenny directly or else...what? A petition? It would be nice if we could address more than just the Peter White inclusion, i.e also ask the question as to who was responsible for that even getting in there, or who knowingly approved of it -- important questions, in my mind. And, even more importantly, pursue the issue of removing/ improving
any dubious information the CAA puts out there.
Teej, that's a great point about the term PEM. "Malaise" is yet another vague French-ish word that we've been saddled with (like "fatigue"!). I've always tried to explain to people who think you just have to "tough it out" that over-exertion can wipe out months or more of slow, painstaking progress, or cause a setback for another stretch of months or longer (and worse, start a downward spiral that can last for years). I think the term "Post-Exertional Decline" is a good one, Andrew. I'm trying to think of a more severe-sounding term, but so far no good.
F.e., the only problem I have with "Post- Exertional Exacerbation" is that the acronym will be "PEE".
from usedtobeperkytina:
It may be they felt doctors would pay attention if White is quoted, the overall brochure would have more credibility, in the eyes of doctors...I don't know enough to say just how bad quoting him is.
It's
really bad, Tina. Peter White is a psychiatrist (NOT a physiologist, cardiologist, exercise specialist, immunologist, virologist, neurologist...) who relentlessly changes government policy to view CFS as a psychosomatic disorder. That right there ought to be enought to keep the CAA from introducing him to our prospective doctors. He is not well known in the American medical community (nor should he be, as he's a very poor excuse for a scientist). Please read the threads on Peter White and on the Psychiatric Lobby (forget the title.."What's It Saying", or something).
To give you an idea of the significance of this and its relation to doctor education, check out the YouTube video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvArXvqAMiA (Part 1 of 4)
(Yes I've posted this before, in this same thread, I think.. but I really think it needs to be seen by every ME/CFS patient!)
It's a four-part video (part 4 is the best) that is a training video for UK doctors put out by some of White's colleagues, teaching them that CFS is due to "wrong illness behaviors", is psychosomatic, but instructing them to lie to their patients that they "believe it is physical" in order to get them to accept CBT/ GET... Here's Part 4 (thick with editorial text commentary, but the points are valid).
[video=youtube;CxqAmyciXbM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CxqAmyciXbM&annotation_id=annotation_608341&feature=iv[/video]
Note how familiar the opening sounds, and how "normal"...but then note the underpinnings behind it. You have to see the other parts, or just read their own comments, to see where they're really coming from. They're saying to "go slow" with activity because our false belief that we are sick have to be "gradually" re-conditioned, not because we
physically need it. Plus, when they say "gradual" in the UK, it ain't what you might think.
That's just a taste of the Peter White plan for CFS in the UK... so why introduce him to doctors here??
Re: the helpfulness of CAA brochures -- I'm glad they helped you. But they are far from acceptable for patients with severe, or potentially severe, ME/CFS. Please read my posts on the subject of the other CAA literature on exercise (if you can find them), or those of any number by others here (incl. Teejkay's).
Re: Psychiatrists... Again, you have had the polar opposite experience from mine and that of many others (esp. in the UK)! As Koan rightly pointed out, there has long been a powerful political mobilization by various vested interests pushing the "psychosocial" model of "CFS" and suppressing valid research into the physical causes of the disease. We owe our continued poor health in large part to the efforts of these vested interests (incl. insurance and pharmaceutical industries). There's information on this topic, esp. on Simon Wessely's vested interests and role as a political agent, in the following document:
"The Mental Health Movement: Persecution of Patients?"
http://www.satori-5.co.uk/word_articles/me_cfs/prof_hooper_3.html
It was presented by Prof. Malcolm Hooper to the House of Commons Select Health Committee. It's a must-read for the info it presents.
Your point about compromise... I don't think any of us can afford any more "compromise". We're compromised enough by being ill; what else can we give up? The right to a correct medical diagnosis? Well-funded research into our disease? Insurance coverage for treatments that can help? We've lost those already.
As for the good cop/ bad cop idea, I agree that's an effective approach... but the "good cop" still has to be a
real cop!!
ETA - Didn't know the video frame would be so huge! Is it supposed to be that big? Oh well...scroll right...
p.s. just as I was finishing this post someone brought me my mail - the CAA Chronicle! Haven't gotten one since the mid 90's. Bizarre.