Search results

"Sickness behaviour" was coined by a veterinarian because his patients could not communicate with words. Humans don't suffer from that deficit. "Sickness" suffices; otherwise we invite attention from a group we don't want. Right, which cause us to feel sick somehow. Ok. Just acting on how...

I don't understand. Omit "behaviour" from your sentence, and doesn't the sentence still stand on the same merit? ETA: Better yet, change sickness behaviour to feeling sick. But I think even that's implied simply by the word "sickness" Sickness can be differentiated from disease in that a...

The sickness behavior schtick has always struck me as absurd. It's one step removed from the real subject. This sickness as a defense mechanism is more of the same. Might as well say a flat tire on a bicycle is the bike's defense once it gets a nail embedded in it.

I suspect most clinicians don't give it enough time to think it through. It's transactional. Researchers are different. Shame on them as an institution. And screw the lazy-ass clinicians. Rat bastards.

What an odd observation. I shun most things psychological when they pertain to contested disease. I nurture a special aversion as it pertains to ME/CFS But I also hold a fondness for confronting straight on the hard realities of my disease. Let's see. Three broad PEM categories: Physical...

Natelson?

I think it easier to write of a triggering event for PEM, than for ME/CFS. Sorry if that's obvious.

This.

You're relatively new. Exertion is exertion. Stress can translate into exertion. Well, let's not exclude "Other". I've a few that can comfortably fit there. Government interference comes to mind.

This could be its own thread. It's ALL about diagnostics. Diagnostics in theory globally would close down psych shops. They would clear up if we've infections at play or massive immune malfunction or another novel issue. They would shut down forever the calumny about our character. Fifty years...

You wrote perfectly. If it matters, I agree with your opinions. I have edited that piece. ;)

Yes. Well said. Remind me how long a half a century is? When should we start getting pissed and discard more cautious language on a wholesale basis? Can't we be circumspect but still say WTF, what we say matters?? Why do I feel like this is the true battleground, and most here would rather...

If we are the good guys, and we only want truth. who doesn't want to understand what motivates them? Avarice? Legacy? State agency? Prejudice? State/government history? Or does it not matter? Does it all boil down to fixing our health?

Right. An impasse. But seriously. This isn't merely Stupid on one half's part. Or natural catch-22's. Someone was/is lying somewhere along the continuum.

You'd need reliably accurate diagnostics to satisfy you, and not only do we not have them, not only have we not had them for the last half century since the advent of widespread ME/CFS and things like the half a dozen or so tick-borne diseases - we remain no closer to having them. We are making...

We are culturally hell-bent on defining most infections as acute - boundaried by symptoms and timeframes and, whenever possible, defined by objectively measured biomarkers or lab results. By the same token, our culture frowns upon chronicity. We look down upon many whose illnesses don't resolve...

Hard to imagine symptoms that are not derived from a sickness or aberrant medical condition.

Yes. You are right. For me, at least, it's a dilemma.

It seems that no matter how you approach this there are assumptions at play. Just to play Devil's Advocate, how would anyone know they didn't have a causal infection/trigger if a) they were asymptomatic for it, and b) the diagnostics were inadequate?

There is so much to unpack here, and it all can be tied back into this presumptive and feel-good IACC genre, but to me this is at best misleading. We already know persistence post abx occurs. It's just that it gets complicated after that. Blood diagnostics vs tissue testing, for example. The...