Now whether Wessely believes GWS is only a mental disorder is a separate issue. I am yet to be convinced that he thinks this but want to do more research.
I don't think that Wessely has stated that GWS is a mental disorder, has he?
He's learnt enough from CFS not to make such an explicit assertion.
(My memory is not working tonight, so I might have forgotten something.)
My understanding is that he has asserted that GWS is not a discrete illness, nor a set of well-defined symptoms, and that GWS is unexplained, and that investigations need to be carried out to find out why some patients recover from GWS-like symptoms, and some don't. The implication is that there are perpetuating factors. (Notice the identical approach that he has to CFS?)
This thread has been an eye-opener to me. I hadn't quite realised the full extent of his approach to CFS, but his approach to GWS has made me see things more clearly.
It's very clever, and very depressing.
Ignore well-defined descriptions of the illness, or well-defined sets of diagnostic criteria, based on careful observations by clinicians, in order to ignore the actual illness that should be investigated.
Investigate an entirely different illnesses with symptoms that vaguely overlap the originally defined illness.
Focus only on the overlapping symptoms.
Give illness with the overlapping symptoms the same name as the originally well-defined illness.
Conflate the two different illnesses, and mix up both sets of patients.
Use selective outcomes, from the conflated groups of patients, to describe outcomes for all the patients.
Use these outcomes to paint a picture of the original illness that does not resemble the original illness.
This goes back to our discussions re diagnostic criteria.
If well-defined, selective, diagnostic criteria, based on legitimate and careful clinical observations, are ignored because there's 'not enough evidence' for them, then the most pointless all-inclusive criteria (that ignore the actual symptoms, patients, and illness) can continue to be used, and no progress will be made.
At the very least, well-defined, selective, sets of criteria should be rigorously investigated in research, in order to test them for usefulness, and in order to try to make progress in research.
If they are not tested, it's a wasted opportunity. They can easily be tested alongside the usual CFS criteria.
Diagnostic criteria for ME have not just been plucked out of thin air, but are based on clinical observations, and they deserve to be tested.
Edit: This post is not aimed specifically at you, Barb. I just used your comment as a starting point.