While it has always been essential, it has now also become urgent to segregate the subset that we are calling ME more clearly, using the ME International Consensus Criteria, so that researchers can confirm/disconfirm their results using patients who have chronic fatigue of this clearly bio-pathological origin. Otherwise the all-inclusive umbrella of “CFS”, in ambiguating natural and psychosocial kinds of fatigue, will continue to dilute the results of any investigations and maintain the pervasive confusion resulting when biopathological kinds are mixed indiscriminately.Guess who has written that, as one possibility for the cause of fatigue in CFS patients?
The results of Jason et al’s studies have confirmed that the Canadian Definition of ME/CFS had clearly separated cases who have ME (fatigue of bio-pathological or natural origin, arising out of a pathological causal structure present in the world apart from the mind that is observing it) from those who have CFS (which includes the minority of the specific natural kinds we are calling ME plus a majority of fatigue kinds that are secondary to other diseases, plus parts of the normal homeostatic activity-rest cycle designed by evolution, plus fatigue kinds constructed by the re-presentational observing/thinking and thus dualistic model-making mind).
Reeves? Straus? Wessely? Wrong, it was Dr. Carruthers, co-author of the International Consensus Criteria (ICC) for ME.
Dualistic body-mind BS at its idealistic
So the people pushing ME have no problem leaving people with "only" CFS behind for the psychobabbler, no matter whether rightly or wrongly diagnosed so.
To hell with the ME advocates I say.
And the following sounds like classic post-modernist Sokal:
The prevalent use of symptom-based definitions has been adding to the confusion by analyzing complex syndromes using a Cartesian [?] method of analysis that isolates symptoms by putting them onto standardized lists of separated [?] subjective entities [?], thereby bypassing [?] the dynamical [?] subjective/objective interactive [?] processual [?] causal [?] on-line [?] context [?] that points to an underlying interactive [?] causal [?] organization [?], even if we are as yet unaware [?] of its details.WTF? The ICC are a Cartesian list of individual symptoms! I don't know where to start with all this. I say Carruthers may be partially unclothed.
Contrariwise the new ICC encourages that symptom structure [?] be observed on-line [?] as interacting [?] embodied [?] and embedded [?] causally [?] interactive [?] dynamical [?] process(es) [?] that have multiple subjective/objective manifestations [?]. These are first observed (or ignored [?]) in a clinical dialogue as (subjective) symptoms and (objective) confirmatory [?] signs which are disambiguated [?] on-line, in their natural [?] context [?], as temporally [?] dense [?] and as having felt/observed [?] causal [?] efficacy [?]. These individuated observations are in turn [wishful thinking at the moment] confirmed by objective biochemical measures, pathophysiological functional testing and imaging. The “same” phenomena can also be studied off-line [?] using epidemiological studies which observe the generalisable constancies found in groups of variously homogenous groups of cases using standardizing techniques of questioning and observation to obtain generalisable results and case definitions. In the standardized and properly randomized environments of scientific experiments, the effects of interventions can be properly controlled, and thus general rules of causality [?] inferred and quantified.