3 ms·

> There is no biomarker or blood test to establish diagnosis ... So arguably there is no "CFS/ME". Arguably, there are many conditions that can be diagnosed as

> There is no biomarker or blood test to establish diagnosis ... So arguably there is no "CFS/ME". Arguably, there are many conditions that can be diagnosed as "CFS/ME". And so it's not surprising that some patients benefit from talk therapy. And that other patients won't, and will be insulted by the very idea. About being "silenced" by online activists, that's just the Internet working as expected. Or at least, expected if you really thought it through.

beat 8y ago
That's not how science works. CFS/ME is a diagnosis based on real, observable behavior. The lack of a scientific explanation for the cause doesn't mean there isn't a cause, and it certainly doesn't mean the condition is not real. It means the cause has not yet been isolated by repeatable experiment. (And yes, it's possible that there are multiple conditions all diagnosed together as CFS/ME, and that some of them are purely psychological. But it's also reasonable to assume that some or all have a physical cause.) Long ago, we didn't know about germs, and people believed diseases were caused by sin (and arguably, some still do). Doesn't mean the diseases weren't as real then as they are now that we know what causes them.
- mirimir 8y ago
  I didn't say that some don't have a physical cause. > CFS/ME is a diagnosis based on real, observable behavior. That's not a meaningful diagnosis. It basically comes down to something like "people who report this set of symptoms, and who don't test positive for anything we know about". Medicine is full of this stuff. They used to just put it in Latin. Because then it sounded like they knew what it was. Doing reliable science with human subjects is hard. And when you don't actually have a reliable test for something, it's impossible. I'm not saying that any of these diseases diagnosed as CFS/ME aren't real. I'm just arguing that it's hard to assess treatments when you have such a poorly defined diagnosis.

beat 8y ago

That's not how science works. CFS/ME is a diagnosis based on real, observable behavior. The lack of a scientific explanation for the cause doesn't mean there isn't a cause, and it certainly doesn't mean the condition is not real. It means the cause has not yet been isolated by repeatable experiment. (And yes, it's possible that there are multiple conditions all diagnosed together as CFS/ME, and that some of them are purely psychological. But it's also reasonable to assume that some or all have a physical cause.) Long ago, we didn't know about germs, and people believed diseases were caused by sin (and arguably, some still do). Doesn't mean the diseases weren't as real then as they are now that we know what causes them.

mirimir 8y ago
I didn't say that some don't have a physical cause. > CFS/ME is a diagnosis based on real, observable behavior. That's not a meaningful diagnosis. It basically comes down to something like "people who report this set of symptoms, and who don't test positive for anything we know about". Medicine is full of this stuff. They used to just put it in Latin. Because then it sounded like they knew what it was. Doing reliable science with human subjects is hard. And when you don't actually have a reliable test for something, it's impossible. I'm not saying that any of these diseases diagnosed as CFS/ME aren't real. I'm just arguing that it's hard to assess treatments when you have such a poorly defined diagnosis.