It can’t be post-infective if there are cases of ME/CFS seemingly without any triggering infections.
And there is no guarantee that ME/CFS is related in any way to the trigger infection, other than that the infection was an immune event, because it doesn’t look like different infections create different types of ME/CFS.
I agree with
@Hutan 's point though on not falling for the distraction (whilst we can always have another thread listing illnesses like MS now being linked to things like prior EBV infection and lots of other conditions where people might have had an infection at some point triggering or making it worse)
The aim of this is to get everyone talking on side debates about whether rehab medicine can debulk tumours if you take the term rehab in a different context (they might want to come up with a different name for their department if they are getting that confused, and if not ... well), or 'is it post-infectious' so it can sit under rehabs' new society
Rather than discuss or read or even acknowledge the pretty serious issue that the open letter was about. I guess it doesn't matter to him if this doesn't work?
- of course he would like any direct reply to distract down that rabbit hole rather than holding him to confirming that he is aware and therefore has foreseeability regarding the BACME therapy doc.
All of this has hidden a choice not to answer so far on a letter of concern about made up 'therapies' likely to do harm.
PS. Talk about dismissive about the needs of severe and very severe ME/CFS 'patients', where were their interests and situation mentioned in any of the responses, rather than the kingdom of x,y,z?
And doesn't pushing a treatment that has harmed, will harm (situationally massively and psychologically as well as physically probably) and it being flagged as such represent something that deserves a sensible and straight answer directly on the topic.
Which if you took that as a test of who could be responsible enough, in the meaning of the word 'acting appropriately/safe pair of hands', should mean that someone would be concerned to read and look into it. Not talk about something else they prefer.
ANd PS now I think about those analogies it's worse than that, it is using made-up, unevidenced things that have failed in the past - so what would that equate to regarding 'debulking cancer tumours' because it is an issue of 'delivering the wrong things' and 'measuring the right outcome' which with oncology I guess is them measuring said tumour, and their 5yr, 10yr mortality rates. Along with proper trials and peer review using different standards to what we've seen from rehab et al.
