MAGICAL MEDICINE: HOW TO MAKE AN ILLNESS ... - Invest in ME

110
blood work may reveal a typical pattern of abnormality on diagnostic tests (DeLuca et al. 1997; Hickie et al.
1995; Jason et al. 2001).
“The relationship between psychiatric diagnosis and CFS diagnosis is one that is far from being
understood”.
Discussing the subtypes found, Jason et al state: “It is notable that these findings emerged utilising only a
basic battery of laboratory screening tests. Many people with CFS exhibit only minimal or subtle
abnormalities on these tests, and these abnormalities may not be acknowledged by the primary care
physician.
“The more commonly reported physiological abnormalities in people with CFS, such as the presence of
RNase L (Suhadolnik et al 1997), adrenal insufficiency with subsequent low cortisol levels (Addington
2000), the presence of orthostatic intolerance (Schondorf et al 1999), and immunological abnormalities
(Patarca‐Montero et al 2000) can only be assessed using highly specialised tests to which people with CFS
typically have little access.
“This study demonstrates that subgrouping is possible using laboratory tests that are readily available and
can easily be ordered by primary care physicians.
“The identification of clinically significant subgroups is the next logical step in further CFS research.
Previous research examining people with CFS as a homogeneous group may have missed real differences
among subgroups of this illness” (“Exploratory Subgrouping in CFS: Infectious, Inflammatory and Other”.
In: Advances in Psychology Research 2006:41:115‐127. A Columbus (Ed): Nova Science Publishers, Inc).
In 2007 an important article by Jason and Richman reviewed two aspects of ME/CFS: the issues involving
the inappropriate name of the illness favoured by some psychiatrists (“chronic fatigue syndrome”, which
undoubtedly trivialises the disorder), and the flawed epidemiological approaches, both of which may have
contributed to the diagnostic scepticism and the stigma that those with ME/CFS encounter.
The authors suggest that the increases in cases during the past 15 years are due to a broadening of the case
definition to include those with primary psychiatric conditions (as the Wessely School have done). The
authors note how flawed epidemiology can contribute to inappropriate stereotypes, and stress the need for
accurate measurement and classification in disorders that might be labelled as ‘functional somatic
syndromes’ (as the Wessely School deems ME/CFS to be).
The authors state: “Accurate measurement and classification of (ME)CFS, fibromyalgia and irritable bowel syndrome
is imperative when evaluating the diagnostic validity of controversial disease entities alternatively labelled ‘functional
somatic syndromes’. Measurement that fails to capture the unique characteristics of these illnesses might
inaccurately conclude that only distress and unwellness characterise these illnesses, thus inappropriately
supporting a unitary hypothetical construct called functional somatic syndromes” (JCFS 2007:14(4):85‐103).
Documented pathology seen in ME/CFS that contra‐indicates the use of GET
There is an extensive literature from 1956 to date on the significant pathology that has been repeatedly
demonstrated in ME/CFS, but not in “CFS/ME” or “chronic fatigue”; this can be accessed on the ME
Research UK website at http://www.meresearch.org.uk/information/researchdbase/index.html and also at
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Organic_evidence_for_Gibson.htm .