Nature: A reboot for chronic fatigue syndrome research

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS news' started by Cheshire, Jan 3, 2018.

  1. Londinium

    Londinium Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    270
    To be clear, I think the likelihood of ME/CFS being down to false illness belief as being basically zero: too much work has been done on this hypothesis, the trials that support it are all irredeemably flawed and where studies have tried to put in measures that would counteract placebo effect the trials have failed. My post certainly shouldn't be read that I have some sneaking suspicion that there's a chance we all have extreme hypochondria or similar. All I was saying was that I reject the false illness belief hypothesis because of the evidence, rather than (as BPS proponents claim of ME/CFS sufferers) because I have a strong objection to any possible brain-based explanation that no amount of high-quality scientific evidence could overcome.

    I hadn't seen that paper before. Bookmarked, thanks! That's such a brilliant finding in that it not only shows the fallacy in virtually all self-report-based ME/CFS research but I imagine it has similar application to CBT trials for a hell of a lot of other illnesses as well.
     
  2. Philipp

    Philipp Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    222
    A german translation of this article was just posted on Spektrum.de!
     
  3. B_V

    B_V Established Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    87
  4. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,570
    Location:
    Norway
  5. searcher

    searcher Established Member

    Messages:
    9
    I also didn't see it initially but it's on that page under "Feature of the Year (specialist audience)".
     
  6. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,570
    Location:
    Norway
    Yes! There it was. Thank you, @searcher - very fitting nick, by the way!

    ETA: I was looking for the title "A reboot for chronic fatigue syndrome research", but the printed version had the title: "The invisible disability"
     
    MEMarge, Skycloud, lycaena and 5 others like this.
  7. ladycatlover

    ladycatlover Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,702
    Location:
    Liverpool, UK
    It's under
    Feature of the Year (specialist audience)

    Cross posted! :)
     
    Last edited: Jun 4, 2018
    ukxmrv, MEMarge, Skycloud and 6 others like this.
  8. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,064
    Location:
    Australia
    Yay for Amy. :)

    Though there is one detail in the article that needs correcting.

    Public formal criticism of PACE began no later than when it was first published in early 2011, including via letters to the Lancet (some of which, to the Lancet's credit, they did accept and publish on the formal record).

    There had also been considerable criticism before then, right back to when PACE was first proposed. But I am not up to speed on that period.
     
    ukxmrv, MEMarge, Angel27 and 13 others like this.
  9. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    6,570
    Location:
    Norway
  10. Andy

    Andy Committee Member

    Messages:
    23,034
    Location:
    Hampshire, UK
    This article has been shared again on Nature's Facebook page
     

Share This Page