Invisible Illness A History, from Hysteria to Long Covid, 2026, Mendenhall (book)

[Utsikt]

Journalists are good at commenting.

Not the ones covering science!

 

[dave30th]

all the more shocking how hard SW came down on her for criticising PACE.

His critiques involved an article he was sent to peer-review, not the book itself. She decided to make changes to the chapter in the book after the contention over the article heated up.

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Not the ones covering science!

I didn't say their comments were always how one would like, but we do have one journalist in our midst who seems pretty on the ball!

 

[dave30th]

Thank you, @dave30th for that thoughtful and informative review.

Thanks. I tried hard to be fair but firm.

 

[Utsikt]

I didn't say their comments were always how one would like, but we do have one journalist in our midst who seems pretty on the ball!

Fair point,
. Although I have to admit that I think of Dave as more of a scientist than journalist, but that might be because of his academic position and rigour. We need more journalists like that!

 

[dave30th]

we do have one journalist in our midst who seems pretty on the ball!

thank you.

 

[JellyBabyKid]

Here's my take after having read the book: https://virology.ws/2026/02/16/trial-by-error-more-on-the-controversy-over-invisible-illness/

Excellent article.

I don't understand why rehabilitationists and others think that we're not entitled to the same medical care as the rest of humanity, and instead we should either adjust to our reality and make the best of it and focus on our values, instead of asking for biomedical research, or heal our underlying stress and trauma and stop trying to return to our former lives that they think are responsible for making us ill in the first place. It is a very moralistic framing.

 

[V.R.T.]

heal our underlying stress and trauma and stop trying to return to our former lives that they think are responsible for making us ill in the first place

I think this perspective makes me particularly angry because I was doing precicely that when I deteriorated from mild. Trying to come to terms with and heal from trauma, build a life that was more suited to me away from academia etc etc.

And yet my voice is completely ignored by these people. My opinion counts for nothing because I listened to the same narratives they did, believed them and put them into practice, but I didn't get the results they expect and want.

I don't understand why rehabilitationists and others think that we're not entitled to the same medical care as the rest of humanity

Because they don't believe we are really legitimately ill, when it comes right down to it. They give us the same advice someone with a severe panic disorder might get - learn to adjust, learn to live with it, don't dare trouble a doctor's waiting room with your problems again.

 

[Felis Catus]

I think this perspective makes me particularly angry because I was doing precicely that when I deteriorated from mild. Trying to come to terms with and heal from trauma, build a life that was more suited to me away from academia etc etc.

If that doesn't work, the explanation is that the patient has been trying too hard and should chillax but not chillax because chillaxing would mean they weren't trying hard enough.

 

[V.R.T.]

If that doesn't work, the explanation is that the patient has been trying too hard and should chillax but not chillax because chillaxing would mean they weren't trying hard enough.

Yep, the endless merry go round of blame!

 

[dave30th]

Although I have to admit that I think of Dave as more of a scientist than journalist, but that might be because of his academic position and rigour. We need more journalists like that!

No problem. I didn't take offense! I am sensitive to the blame that journalists often receive, even when it's warranted, which it often is. Journalists are often doing their best and listening to those they think or are told are the experts. Most have zero training in any of this medical/biological stuff, and it's very complicated to figure out and get it right. Especially when young and relatively new to covering any of this.

 

[Sean]

If that doesn't work, the explanation is that the patient has been trying too hard and should chillax but not chillax because chillaxing would mean they weren't trying hard enough.

What I call the Goldilocks solution. Which, of course, needs the careful guidance of an expert to find that perfect ever elusive balance between too little and too much, and who will never accept any blame if it doesn't work, which it never does, and especially if it makes you worse, which it often does.

 

[Utsikt]

Journalists are often doing their best and listening to those they think or are told are the experts.

This is what I struggle with, to be honest. Because journalists claim they are «truth-seeking» but often write about things where they have no basis for assessing what’s true.

I have asked a couple of journalists about this, and I’ve been dismissed with «I can’t question the expert» or «I don’t know more than the expert about this». And when I’ve notified journalists about obvious mistakes (like saying that a study looked at something it definitively and very clearly did not look at at all), more often than not they seem to be unable to understand.

But at the same time, journalists frequently do question the experts and authorities. Because for some areas they’ve made it a priority to build up sufficient knowledge and experience. Like politics, finances, business and law.

For some reason, science appears to be fair game for everyone, and I frequently see juniors or even students covering it at the largest outlets.