• 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, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Walitt and Shorter - again!

Forbin

Senior Member
Messages
966
Though it's always impressive to see a cutting edge citation from 111 years ago...
The neurasthenia shut down followed loss of societal support with the recognition that neurasthenia was not a condition of over-sensitive reflexes and was better considered within a psychological framework [14,15].

14 Beard GM (1905) A Practical Treatise on Nervous Exhaustion (Neurasthenia), Its Symptoms, Nature, Sequences, Treatment (5th edn.) New York: E.B. Treat & Company.

...even Edward Shorter thought that the 19th century diagnosis of neurasthenia was so haphazard that, in his words,
"...great caution is indicated before assuming an even rough equivalence between neurasthenia and chronic fatigue. Neurasthenia seems mainly to have served as a wastebasket diagnosis, standing for a heterogeneous mix of neuro- and psychopathology." https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0470514396

Of course, the article is about fibromyalgia, but I can't imagine that it makes anymore sense to compare current cases of that with cases of an ill-defined entity not from this century, not from the last century, but from the century before that.
 

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
And there is the current trend (no doubt strongly encouraged by BPS) to merge psychiatry with neurology to form a sub specialty in neurology and thus lend biological credibility to Psych. A shiny new update for theories that are 100's of years out of date.

It might even be useful to have a sub specialty in neurology related to abnormalities in functioning that manifest as psychological so long as they remain firmly embedded in brain biology and not some airy mind concept.
 

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
...even Edward Shorter thought that the 19th century diagnosis of neurasthenia was so haphazard that, in his words,

Thanks - I thought he had presented them as more similar than that. Sounds like I was being unfair on him!
 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
It might even be useful to have a sub specialty in neurology related to abnormalities in functioning that manifest as psychological so long as they remain firmly embedded in brain biology and not some airy mind concept.

It might, but I would have to say 'fat chance' when the development is being driven from within a speculation-laden branch of psychiatry.

I always wonder how actual neurologists feel about their rather significant discipline being annexed by the likes of Wessely.
 

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
It might, but I would have to say 'fat chance' when the development is being driven from within a speculation-laden branch of psychiatry.

I always wonder how actual neurologists feel about their rather significant discipline being annexed by the likes of Wessely.

Yes, I was opining on a rational world scenario where psychiatry was irrelevant. And I do wonder about the second point too. Perhaps the average neurologist is not paying attention or they're complicit in providing a diagnosis that can then be treated by Psychiatry.
 

Forbin

Senior Member
Messages
966
Thanks - I thought he had presented them as more similar than that. Sounds like I was being unfair on him!

Well, that quote was from a presentation he gave in 1993. I can't imagine any new research into 19th century neurasthenia cases which would have changed his view in the interim. On the other hand, there's no transcript of the talk he recently gave at the NIH, so we don't know if he continues to include that point in his presentations.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
would it be possible for the whole history of psychiatry to be properly evaluated .and finally proven to be snake oil salesmen taken advantage of a wholly inadequate medical profession. from various quotes and reports on noted people in this field of psuedo medicine .every thing they purport to be factual is solely based on the misbegotten beliefs of a handful of egotistical bastards.

I think you just did it. Case closed.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
I always wonder how actual neurologists feel about their rather significant discipline being annexed by the likes of Wessely.

In the NHS where they get paid a comfortable salary and its not based on trying to solicit private paying patients they love it because it allows them to sit on their fat arses doing nothing until its time to dine out in a fancy restaurant in the evening.

In my experience neurologists are happy to dump patients anywhere and to be quite honest they really dont seem to even understand the basics of neurology and its a fact that they have no part in interpreting MRIs and don't even want the responsibility.

On top of that those who order the least tests and provide the least evidence for disability claims are deemed the most resourceful and will get the most promotions and the invitations to the inner circle.
 
Last edited:

KME

Messages
91
Location
Ireland
Neurasthenia is often considered to be what is now called mecfs, so I find that statement particularly disturbing coming from someone playing a key role in the NIH's intramural mecfs study.

It now seems likey that it was Brian Wallit invited Edwards Shorter to give his talk at the NIH.

Agreed. I think it's important to be realistic about Walitt. Walitt has been quite explicit in written papers dated as recently as 2015 about his views on both fibromyalgia and CFS (he doesn't use the term ME):

Wolfe & Walitt 2013: “The very strong resemblance of fibromyalgia to neurasthenia is a key observation. Time brings clarity to confusing illnesses of the past, and we now recognize that hysteria, neurasthenia and railway spine were almost always psychogenic disorders.”


Wolfe & Walitt 2013: “The rise of fibromyalgia and the disputes it has engendered represents the age-old battle over psychogenicity. All other things being equal, fibromyalgia should have failed. It began as a simple local pain disorder, but evolved over time in one that had multiple somatic symptoms and features that many considered psychosomatic. If these features were the death knell of neurasthenia, they should have also spelled the death of fibromyalgia. But they didn’t. The era was different, and powerful cultural forces stood being fibromyalgia and fought against the idea of a psychogenic illness.”


Wolfe and Walitt conclude: “Fibromyalgia seems to be a somatic symptom disorder with remarkable similarities to neurasthenia. It represents the end position on a continuum of distress. While psychological issues are clear, powerful societal forces are marshalled on behalf of fibromyalgia and it seems likely that they will sustain the fibromyalgia, at least for the present.”

Full paper at https://www.arthritis-research.org/... of fibromyalgia - NRR submission version.pdf


Walitt is the Lead Clinical Investigator of the NIH study into “Post-Infectious ME/CFS” and yet is someone who does not believe that infection has been scientifically validated as a trigger for ME/CFS. In Wang, Walitt et al’s 2015 chemo-brain paper available at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4750385/, Walitt and his co-authors state


“Both of these illnesses [fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome] have disputed causal triggers, such as trauma in fibromyalgia and infection in chronic fatigue syndrome, whose validity is also not answered by the scientific literature to date.”

In the same paper, further clarification is given that Walitt places chronic fatigue syndrome firmly in the same somatoform category where he places fibromyalgia: “The discordance between the severity of subjective experience and that of objective impairment is the hallmark of somatoform illnesses, such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome.”

Dr Walitt describes his research interests in this researcher story, dated August 2012 available at http://georgetownhowardctsa.org/researchers/researcher-stories/brian-t--walitt-


Dr Walitt: “My research interest is perceptual illness. In these disorders, a person experiences a range of different bodily sensations, such as pain and fatigue, without any clear external cause. In some, these sensations can be bothersome while in others they can be disabling. The perceptual illnesses that interest me change their names with every generation, with current disorders being called fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, and post-Lyme syndrome.”

Dr Walitt continues: “My involvement in the field started during my medical training as I saw my first patients with fibromyalgia. The complaints of these patients were very familiar and made me realize how common they are in the general population, even amongst my friends and family. The desire to figure out a way to alleviate this particular type of suffering drew me into the field. As I have become more involved in research over the years, I have become convinced that unraveling the mysteries of perceptual illnesses will also shed light into the mechanisms that enable all people to feel and think and expand our understanding of the human condition.”

You're not alleviating my particular type of suffering, Dr Walitt.
 

Nielk

Senior Member
Messages
6,970
Right. But, Nath, Koroshetz and some advocates have been stating as of late that Walitt's views about these "conditions" like fibromyalgia and ME/CFS have changed. They say that he believes now that they are real and organic.

That is why the article featured in this thread that was just published last month (October 2016) is so important. It debunks the deception that Walitt's views have changed.

Why is the NIH insisting on keeping Walitt and disregarding ME/CFS stakeholders? Additionally, why are they covering up his true ongoing beliefs that this "condition" is in the mind?
 

soti

Senior Member
Messages
109
"even amongst my friends and family" not to get personal, but now wondering what it would be like to be his friends or family and be sick---!
 

KME

Messages
91
Location
Ireland
Yes, I have read comments that Walitt now thinks CFS is "biological". This is what I meant about being realistic - I think when Dr Walitt says a condition is "biological", he can mean something along the lines of the phrase I quoted above when he described fibromyalgia as a "somatic symptom disorder" - i.e. a psychosomatic disorder manifesting in physical symptoms, rather than what other doctors would understand the term "biological" to mean. Similarly when some doctors use the word "real", they mean something quite different from other doctors, patients and the public.

Dr Walitt's interpretations of the words "real" and "biological" are illustrated from 5:00 in this 9 min video interview from September 2015 (scroll down for video):
http://www.mdedge.com/familypractic...n/video-fibromyalgia-doesnt-fit-disease-model

For example, he says "The experience of fibromyalgia is very much real to the people who have it...we don't really understand how the physicality of that chemistry becomes our thoughts and feelings. And in people with fibromyalgia they clearly feel these ways, and there's probably an underlying biology to it, but the idea that that's an abnormal biology is less clear."

In this most recent paper, I do not see a mention of CFS or even fatigue (correct me if I have missed it), so there is a theoretical possibility that he now sees CFS as not somatoform, but there's no evidence to suggest this is the case. And his views on fibromyalgia are clearly unchanged.
 
Last edited:

Pyrrhus

Senior Member
Messages
4,172
Location
U.S., Earth
The Brian Walitt commentary says:
The two studies [1,2] he refers to in this bolded statement are:

(1) The Prevalence and Characteristics of Fibromyalgia in the 2012 National Health Interview Survey
(2) Three-Quarters of Persons in the US Population Reporting a Clinical Diagnosis of Fibromyalgia Do Not Satisfy Fibromyalgia Criteria: The 2012 National Health Interview Survey

I am a bit brain foggy today, but it seems these issues revolve around the fibromyalgia diagnostic criteria used. Perhaps someone with a sharper mind can understand what's going on in those two above studies.

I try to explain the answer here:
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/fibromyalgia-fm-diagnostic-criteria.86692/#post-2385012

And more about Walitt's involvement with fibromyalgia here:
https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/fibromyalgia-fm-diagnostic-criteria.86692/#post-2384804