I don't even care if that cure is in fact BPS.
Agreed. It's been portrayed that people object to CBT/GET because it implies they have a mental illness. Personally, I couldn't give a monkeys if my illness was shown to be mental if the proposed therapies worked. My objection, and I suspect most ME/CFS sufferers' objection, is that GET:
- may be harmful to many more serious ME/CFS patients;
- diverts research funds and interest in the field in looking at other possible biological causes; and
- most of all, has been shown to be entirely ineffective at generating anything other than a transient placebo response.
*though I suspect the theory that an illness is biopsychosocial in nature cannot really be considered a scientific theory at all, as it fails the Popperian criterion of being falsifiable - because all illnesses will contain a biological, psychological and social component. I struggle to think of any illness that couldn't be portrayed as having some BPS element which is why I suspect that even if, say, the Fluge & Mella research demonstrates a strong autoimmune link, BPS proponents will be able to argue that said link doesn't undermine their view that ME/CFS is a biopsychosocial illness. BPS is such an elastic term that it is essentially meaningless. It's as about as scientifically rigorous as when CAM practioners bandy around terms like 'energy'.
Last edited: