I believe and trust that no one is trying to diminish the suffering. But within that I still feel there is condescension when someone describes the idea of inv

I believe and trust that no one is trying to diminish the suffering. But within that I still feel there is condescension when someone describes the idea of investigating a person's symptoms as directly reported "Chasing down rabit-holes by pretending the anxiety is something /else/". There is way more certainty and dismissal in that attitude than anybody has justified in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, I understand if investigating the direct symptoms might not be practical under some circumstances. But saying it's useless and "pretending" goes too far IMO. > But these things tend to self limit. Ann says she has chronic fatigue. She undergoes some psychological therapy. She gets some relief from her symptoms. A bunch of people in the CFS organisation now shun Ann, and tell her that she didn't have real CFS. I don't see how this scenario answers my question. Your story suggests that their is social pressure to resist the idea that the condition is treatable. It doesn't explain what would prevent an expanding scope for where the condition is identified.