Chronisches Fatigue-Syndrom, 2026, Alexa Alica Kupferschmitt & Volker Köllner

I've only just arrived at this thread - what the hell! Just when I think I've seen and experienced the worse that this profession can do, they plummet ever lower casting off the last vestiges of ethics, morality and integrity.

Springer need to make a statement about what's gone on here surely!

I'm also not convinced that the authors have the clean hands that one of them, Volker Köllner, suggests by his statement on LinkedIn.

The parts of text which Kollner suggests was Prof Linden's additions, do seem to follow Linden's PTED theorising while attaching it to a whole patient group. A patient group, likely in the millions worldwide who have been harmed, over the decades, by such therapeutic interventions.

It would make a great get out of jail free card for BPS proponents, like the authors, to simply let it pass by in the edit. These "querulous" patients harm themselves.

Edit: and this is what the next generation of professionals will be taught from this textbook and others like it
 
Last edited:
The full statement by Professor Köllner on LinkedIn.
Machine translation:
Corrected version of our book chapter:
In recent weeks, we have received many critical reactions to our book chapter on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in the 10th edition of the Manual of Behavior Therapy, published by Springer. We share this criticism on several points and distance ourselves from the statements listed below, as they did not originate from us.

Initially, a distorted version of our chapter was published. This version contained statements that were neither written nor authorized by us and that explicitly contradict our therapeutic approach. Among other things, it was claimed that patients with Post-COVID are "complaining and aggressive," that myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome could develop solely due to prolonged immobility, and a link to hypochondriacal disorder was established.

We clearly distance ourselves from these remarks. In all our publications, we have advocated for a biopsychosocial concept of Post-COVID and therefore reject the one-sided psychologizing employed here. We consider the intense emotional reactions of those affected to be entirely understandable as a response to a severely limiting illness with an unclear prognosis, and we would never describe them in this manner, which we—and as previous reactions have shown, many affected individuals—perceive as derogatory.

CFS and Post-COVID remain controversially discussed topics, as the evidence in many respects is still unclear. We believe it is important and productive for the benefit of the patients to research both biomedical and psychosocial explanatory models and treatment approaches—not as competitors, but as complements—similar to the approach in psychocardiology and psycho-oncology.

We welcome the associated discussion, provided it is conducted objectively and without personal attacks. We have been working with people affected by Post-COVID for five years, have learned a great deal from them during this time, and believe that respect and meeting patients on equal footing are the foundation of the therapeutic relationship. For this very reason, we were deeply distressed that the aforementioned statements were falsely published under our name.

It has since become clear that the disputed passages were subsequently inserted into our text by Prof. Linden, in his capacity as the responsible editor, without prior consultation. Springer has published an erratum regarding this: https://lnkd.in/dRiMnZuU. The correct chapter has now been posted online by Springer and will also appear in the printed edition. We would like to expressly thank Springer for their support and transparency.
Click to expand...
Korrekte Version unseres Buchkapitels:

In den letzten Wochen haben wir viele kritische Reaktionen zu unserem Buchkapitel zum Chronischen Fatigue-Syndrom in der 10. Auflage des Verhaltenstherapie-Manuals im Springer - Verlag erhalten. Wir teilen diese Kritik in mehreren Punkten und distanzieren uns von den u. g. Aussagen. Sie stammen nämlich nicht von uns.

Initial wurde eine verfälschte Version unseres Kapitels veröffentlicht. Diese enthielt Aussagen, die nicht von uns stammen, die nicht von uns autorisiert waren und die unserer therapeutischen Haltung ausdrücklich widersprechen. Dort wurde u. a. behauptet, Patienten mit Post Covid seinen nörglerisch-aggressiv, man würde bei längerer Immobilität alleine deshalb ein myalgisches Fatiguesyndrom entwickeln und es wurde ein Bezug zur hypochondrischen Störung hergestellt. Von diesen Äußerungen distanzieren wir uns klar. Wir haben uns in all unseren Publikationen für ein bio-psycho-soziales Konzept von Post COVID eingesetzt und lehnen daher die hier betriebene einseitige Psychologisieren ab. Die intensiven emotionalen Reaktionen der Betroffenen halten wir als Reaktion auf eine stark einschränkende Erkrankung mit unklarer Prognose für gut nachvollziehbar und würden sie nie in dieser aus unserer Sicht (und wie die bisherigen Reaktionen zeigen, auch aus der Sicht vieler Betroffenen) abwertend klingenden Weise beschreiben.

CFS und Post Covid sind nach wie vor kontrovers diskutierte Themen, da die Evidenz hierzu in vielen Punkten noch unklar ist. Wir halten es für wichtig und produktiv im Sinne der Betroffenen, sowohl biomedizinische als auch psychosoziale Erklärungsmodelle und Behandlungsansätze zu erforschen - nicht als Konkurrenz, sondern als Ergänzung - so wie wir es aus der Psychokardiologie und der Psychoonkologie kennen. Gerne stellen wir uns der damit verbundenen Diskussion, wenn sie sachlich und ohne persönliche Anfeindungen geführt wird. Wir arbeiten seit 5 jähren mit Post-COVID-Betroffenen, haben in dieser Zeit viel von ihnen gelernt und halten Respekt und Augenhöhe für eine Grundlage der therapeutischen Beziehung. Gerade deshalb hat es uns sehr betroffen gemacht, dass die o. g. Äußerungen fälschlich unter unserem Namen veröffentlicht wurden.

Inzwischen wurde klar, dass die strittigen Textpassagen von Prof. Linden als zuständigem Herausgeber nachträglich und ohne Rücksprache in unseren Text eingefügt wurden. Der Springer-Verlag hat hierzu ein Erratum veröffentlicht: https://lnkd.in/dRiMnZuU. Inzwischen wurde das korrekte Kapitel von Springer online gestellt und auch die Druckauflage wird mit dem korrekten Kapitel erscheinen. Wir danken dem Springer-Verlag an dieser Stelle ausdrücklich für seine Unterstützung und Transparenz.

There are already numerous comments:
LinkedIn | Google Translate
 
It was certainly no coincidence that Michael Linden was Köllner’s predecessor as head of the same psychosomatic rehabilitation clinic run by the German Pension Insurance Scheme. I think the two of them get on very well indeed.

What I’d be interested to know is what the second editor, Martin Hautzinger, actually thinks about all these embarrassing incidents.
As an editor, regardless of whether I’d ever looked into ME before, I’d simply be absolutely furious about these embarrassing incidents surrounding my book

I don’t have much hope for compassion but maybe one could get him by his pride; just like Linden, he’s already over 75, and psychiatrists of that generation sometimes seem to be of a particular breed.

During my psychology degree, our lecturers would often tell us a few horror stories, with the aim of making us realise just how "lucky" we are to be studying psychology today and not 20-30 years ago.
They’d tell us about the sort of people who used to be their professors - paternalistic psychiatrists who felt strong superiority over students as well as over the sick people they treated and they hadn’t just studied in the 60-70s, but had also remained stuck in that era.
Seems like we have found at least one of them °-°
 
In recent weeks, we have received many critical reactions to our book chapter on Chronic Fatigue Syndrome in the 10th edition of the Manual of Behavior Therapy, published by Springer. We share this criticism on several points and distance ourselves from the statements listed below, as they did not originate from us.
Click to expand...

We clearly distance ourselves from these remarks. In all our publications, we have advocated for a biopsychosocial concept of Post-COVID and therefore reject the one-sided psychologizing employed here. We consider the intense emotional reactions of those affected to be entirely understandable as a response to a severely limiting illness with an unclear prognosis, and we would never describe them in this manner, which we—and as previous reactions have shown, many affected individuals—perceive as derogatory.
Click to expand...

Well they would, now, after being called out by their peers as well as sufferers.

I see from some of the comments below the erratum, that the full version was uploaded by the authors to Researchgate. They must have read it because they had hold of a copy which must have been sent to them containing the alleged unauthorized additions. Negligent at best, liars at worst.

As a result the "We're shocked, shocked I tell you" defence is simply not going to fly.

There must be a full review by Springer which must be published, and the whole book withdrawn until such time as that is concluded.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Hubris.

It does not seem to enter their heads, as I have said before in relation to Simon Wessely, that it is totally unprofessional for a psychiatrist or psychologist to make remarks like this in public documents.
Click to expand...
Nor in private, where a lot of the damage is done, away from appropriate scrutiny, especially by the people whose lives they are abusing for their own benefit.

rvallee said:
And frankly them thanking the editor for their transparency, when they were anything but, reeks of a cover up where Linden, being likely retired, takes harmless flak for the team and everyone pretends like they were the real victims. There is simply too much precedent for these things to take anyone at their word here, no one involved has credibility.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't buy it either, especially given this comment on their statement:

You have added the controversial version to ResearchGate yourself. So you would have to know them and uploaded them on an external platform or claimed them for themselves. It is strange that the correction only comes after contradiction from the quorum and from those affected, although you should have known this version (since they advertise with RG).​
​
Chandelier said:

Post-traumatic Embitterment Disorder​

Judging from the following study title, we might not be the only patient group that he perceives as querulants:

Querulant delusion and post-traumatic embitterment disorder
Click to expand...
Must be nice to have the power to so arbitrarily blame your victims for your own gross technical and ethical failures, in such a brazen and cruel manner.

And cowardly.

What a piece of shit. :mad:

Maat said:
I've only just arrived at this thread - what the hell! Just when I think I've seen and experienced the worse that this profession can do, they plummet ever lower casting off the last vestiges of ethics, morality and integrity.
Click to expand...
One of the hard lessons I have had to learn over more than forty years of dealing with ME/CFS and these clowns is that there is no bottom to their cesspit. They can and will always dive deeper.

They long ago forfeited any right to the slightest benefit of doubt. Their act is crystal clear.
 
Last edited:
Sean said:
It needs to be an external review, by credible independent people, if it is to be taken seriously.

It cannot be done in house by Springer. Too many serious conflicts of interests for them now.
Click to expand...
Good point.

Edit: A legal point on whether Linden's additions were authorised. In publishing the Chapter on Researchgate themselves, they would be deemed to have authorised it.
 
Last edited:
From Bluesky:
​
bafkreibnhoa65a2lc2jjtykqe2ohhmf4sgvhryouzingzwpfiqnqm5iila.webp​
Within psychosomatic medicine, the debate continues as to whether those affected by ME/CFS should be publicly insulted in academic journals or merely harmed therapeutically...​
​
in der psychosomatik ist man sich noch uneinig, ob man me/cfs betroffene in fachartikeln öffentlich beleidigen oder nur therapeutisch schädigen sollte...​
​

 
Chandelier said:
The text on the YouTube thumbnail says: HEALING BITTERNESS THROUGH WISDOM
Click to expand...

From Twitter:

You've got to have some real nerve to be as cunning as Linden: you humiliate and psychologize ME patients while simultaneously inventing the diagnosis of post-traumatic embitterment disorder.​
Is his end game to sell us his wisdom therapy?​
​
So gewieft wie Linden muss man erstmal sein: Man demütigt und psychologisiert ME Patienten und erfindet gleichzeitig die Diagnose der posttraumatischen Verbitterungsstörung. Ist das Ziel, uns seine Weisheitstherapie zu verkaufen?​
​
​

 
We clearly distance ourselves from these remarks. In all our publications, we have advocated for a biopsychosocial concept of Post-COVID and therefore reject the one-sided psychologizing employed here.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
rvallee said:
They're the same thing. Whether they understand that or not they are the same thing.
Click to expand...
It is, but furthermore the chapter they wrote in this manual is about ME, respectively "CFS", and not about Post-Covid. In one section which was corrected it isn't even mentioned, it's about "fatigue-patients" in general.

It’s all just so unprofessional – where on earth did these people study and get their PhDs?

These are the sort of errors and inaccuracies that I would have had to correct even in the most insignificant seminar paper – one that no one else would ever lay eyes on – and yet they’re shamelessly doing them in textbooks and public statements.

That said, I really hope that it's just unprofessionalism, I don't want to think too much about the other possibility, that she is deliberately only talking about "post-covid", because she would deem this kind of insulting language and one sided psychologisation appropriate for other "fatigue patients".
 
Last edited:
Silip said:
That said, I really hope that it's just unprofessionalism, I don't want to think too much about the other possibility, that she is deliberately only talking about "post-covid", because she would deem this kind of insulting language and one sided psychologisation appropriate for other "fatigue patients".
Click to expand...
I'm afraid that the reality is probably as bleak as it gets.
Here is Linden's view on fatigue patients – or rather – their "complaints": [GER, Translated] The spectrum of fatigue syndromes, 2022, Michael Linden
 
Nina Weber from DER SPIEGEL on Bluesky.

Machine translation:

Nina Weber @ninaweber.bsky.social
Regarding the much-discussed chapter by Kupferschmitt and Köllner on “Chronic Fatigue Syndrome,” I sent Springer Nature a few questions last Thursday and received an impressive non-answer today. #MECFS

These were my questions (slightly shortened). They were sent before Volker Köllner made public that the editor, M. Linden, had changed the text.
- Who inserted these passages? In other words, who specifically wrote them?
- What was the reason for adding them?

- Regarding the phrase “A striking characteristic of some fatigue patients is their confrontational, accusatory tone toward healthcare providers”: Why was there a desire to publicly discredit a group of patients?

- What expertise does the author have regarding ME/CFS?
- Why weren’t the authors consulted about the changes? Or is that standard practice?
- If it is standard practice, who reviews such last-minute changes?

- The erratum refers to “final corrections.” However, from my perspective, these include new points: for example, the “confrontational, accusatory tone,” “myalgic fatigue syndrome,” or “hypochronic illness.” Why did Springer Nature consider these “corrections”?

- Does Springer Nature have rules on the use of AI in producing texts, including research and writing? (The email had previously mentioned that a link had been printed that was apparently generated via ChatGPT.)

Today, the reply from a “Springer Nature spokesperson”. She wrote: "I hope the below answers your questions",

"As set out in the erratum, editorial changes were made to parts of the chapter during its final review which were not properly communicated to the chapter authors ahead of publication.

The incorrect version of the chapter has since been withdrawn and replaced by the version approved by the authors.The corrected version is now available online and in print.

Incorrect copies have been removed from sale, although we are unable to control when those updates are reflected on third party sites.

AI was not used in the editorial review. Springer Nature has clear policies on the responsible use of AI in research and publishing, including guidance for book authors and editors, with human accountability, oversight, and declaration at the core."

I hope the below answers your questions?
No, this answers nothing, since my questions were ignored. It reflects poorly on publication processes and the culture around acknowledging and correcting mistakes.
​


From the comments:
Nina Weber @ninaweber.bsky.social
Thanks! Unfortunately, I only managed to make this one request, but if I’m seeing this right, @martinruecker.bsky.social will shed more light on the matter.
Click to expand...
Martin Rücker @martinruecker.bsky.social
Unfortunately, SpringerNature often isn’t much help when it comes to requests. I find this kind of lack of transparency particularly troubling and harmful in academia—and your experience here unfortunately confirms that. How is trust supposed to grow?
Click to expand...
 
This is supposed to be a clinical therapy manual for heaven's sake. The relevant authorities should consider whether Dr Linden should be disciplined. I certainly believe so.

And I am not a patient. My 'tone' is driven by being a senior clinical academic who values honesty and rigour amongst colleagues.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom