It seems to me that CSS is one of the worst wolves in sheep's clothing at the moment, as it appears to successfully fool even many well informed pwme and patient representatives, even people who are otherwise fully aware of the problems with BPS and MUS etc. I find that very worrying.
As far as I can tell, most people seem to perceive what they believe to be the main idea of CSS -- amplification of signals in the CNS -- as something completely neutral and harmless.
What really boggles my mind is that even after reading articles on CSS treatment programs -- that literally says things like ”It addresses negative thinking, maladaptive emotions and cognitions, avoidance behaviors, and catastrophizing. Hypervigilance, health anxiety, and somatization are reviewed.” (Fleming et al, Rambam Maimonides Med J., 2015) -- many of them are still unwilling to let go of their "neutral and harmless" attitude towards CSS. Why is that?
Here's a roughly translated quote from a discussion I had with a patient organisation representative not too long ago, that I find quite telling: "I consider it problematic to filter out [that is, be critical towards] "central sensitization" since so many people with ME are very sensitive to sounds, light and smells. CSS is of course not the same as ME, but sensitization is obviously a significant part of the symptoms."
So, once again at least part of the problem seems to be that the BPS people have taken a common word/concept that has a certain meaning (neutral, harmless...) to people in general, and then they give it a completely different meaning. It seems most people don't care to look deeper than the surface, they don't bother finding out what the word/concept actually means to the BPS people, or how it differs from their own understanding of the word. This kind of "wordplay" is hugely problematic, in my opinion.
Another example is a proposal that has been submitted to the Riksdag (the Swedish Parliament) a couple of times the last few years. The proposal is titled
"Recognition and support for patients affected by ME/CFS and IBS" and has some good parts to it, but they question whether ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia and IBS are individual illnesses, and suggest that the proposed increased investment in research should be based on the central sensitivity syndromes model. In the discussion groups I am active in, most people were very happy and refused to consider that this would potentially lead to more (B)PS research, rather than research based on the biomedical understanding of ME.