Snowdrop
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
And does that mean all of them are incorrect? This disease is known for being very diverse and it is difficult to find two patients who have the exact same experience. I believe just because someone doesn't experience one symptom or the same type of fluctuation, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I understand when people question something that is simply scientifically impossible but otherwise why question others' experiences of their own symptoms even within the community? It's bad enough coming from doctors so why question each others' experience with such a spectrum-like disease?
Sorry, but I'm one of those "weather change" types and it makes my life so miserable that I couldn't leave such a comment unanswered.
It must be one of my unhelpful beliefs.
Hm, the occasional layman person has these beliefs because they are frightened and obsessed and who probably report improvement after CBT/LP? This actually feels the opposite, that these people are viewed as someone whose experiences are not real and their symptoms are due to their misguided beliefs. That's what it sounds like, psychologizing, BPS and really rubs me the wrong way.
One thing that I find very important in my own group is to make sure pseudoscience is not involved too much but to also make sure people are believed when they tell us about their symptoms and fluctuations. No one really understands this disease very well, so who are we to doubt others' experiences, especially when our own ones have been doubted so often too?
I'm not saying no one is mistaken and people never attribute improvement, bad reactions etc erroneously to something but to me these were very sweeping generalizations.
Hi @Wyva
To me there are two separate but related issues here. Everyone should be believed (with small caveats that occasionally someone will lie as we've seen with people on social media fundraising for the cancer they don't have). But generally people should be allowed to present their story as it's their experience.
Where things diverge is when the person goes beyond the facts of their experience into speculating about the things exterior to their ability to know with certainty that a thing is so.
So, for example, relating events that happened and the things one felt both emotionally and physically are fair enough. But interpreting something that happened as the thing that changed what you were experiencing requires some proof if you are going to give an opinion publically that x or y made you better. IMO it is not appropriate and doesn't fall under the personal experience part of the story. And people have often opined on this sort of thing only to come back and say it wasn't as they had hoped. This is normal but not useful as a narrative.
People are always hoping and in that hope find explanations that are not backed up by anything real. And it may even be that they find something that works in a limited way but give it a bigger role than is warranted. For myself as I get older it's even hard to know if some new physical experience is even part of ME or something else including just getting older.
To conclude, there needs to be some skepticism employed when talking about the relation of exterior events being 'the thing' that is affecting our health. It is going beyond our direct experience into hypotheticals. That's why we come here to advocate for the science.
That's how I see stories from people.