First you’re opining on what the disease is? It’s actually the converse to your preposition: it’s a giant symptom cluster (50+) and no one generally believes it’s multiple diseases lumped together. Read the Mayo paper.
The rest of your comment has a logical fallacy which renders it moot: do they have a diagnoses, yes/no? If yes, then your “try other things” and “maybe it’s psychological” comments make no sense and are refuted clinically. It’s like saying “is your computer turned on? No? Ok, it’s probably a software bug. Let’s just be open to possibilities and not be close minded here.”
Also a) you’re assuming they didn’t try therapy. And b) “they’d be open to more possibilities”…like what specifically? The self reports is 20k data points and they got bought by 23andMe; but we could pull PubMed and get to the same result. Nothing seems to work and more importantly other than a believed onset from a post-viral infection, there’s no known even rudementary understanding of how it works. Clinically there’s no known above zero effectiveness non-“say no to everything” modality. What do you suggest these people that have spent 2 to 3 years probably trying everything imaginable attempt?
Like it’s so straight forward. Try talk therapy for a year and then try anti depressants. Oh it didn’t work across a gigantic cohort? And the scientific community generally agrees psychological isn’t a recommended approach? Very Donald Trumpian to say “who knows who knows, let’s keep an open mind here” with no backing on data to stand on other than an intrinsic belief regarding a clinical topic.
You’re suggesting a high rate of false positives. The links show an expected 91% of false negatives (I’m assuming due to the sheer difficulty of diagnosis) and literally no comment of false positives. Not clear how you can defend that assertion.
The Mayo paper seems to be quite slanted against psychological aspects.
There is quite a lot of research, and it shows that both stressful life events and viral infections tend to be triggers. (We know that viral infections are physiologically stressful, in that they activate the HPA axis).
There is also an abundance of evidence that psychological therapy and multidisciplinary rehabilitation helps patients. So this definitely isn't just laziness in saying "maybe it's psychological".
Yeah I mean 23 MDs went to retreat to try to summarize current best understanding of this disease versus your individual opinion.
Which evidence? And why did Mayo/British NIH/CDC/WHO happen to miss this "abundance of evidence"? Without pointing to wonky stuff, how could all those cumulative people employed at those organizations be wrong, and you random internet stranger with no citations happen to have nailed it? I'm assuming you're not claiming Mayo is somehow dishonest. So are you claiming they're incompetent? If neither on what ground do you assert its incorrect?
This is like arguing with an anti-vaxxer who argues "we just don't know, I heard the jab makes you infertile". Almost seems like a waste to even bother replying.
First you’re opining on what the disease is? It’s actually the converse to your preposition: it’s a giant symptom cluster (50+) and no one generally believes it’s multiple diseases lumped together. Read the Mayo paper.
The rest of your comment has a logical fallacy which renders it moot: do they have a diagnoses, yes/no? If yes, then your “try other things” and “maybe it’s psychological” comments make no sense and are refuted clinically. It’s like saying “is your computer turned on? No? Ok, it’s probably a software bug. Let’s just be open to possibilities and not be close minded here.”
Also a) you’re assuming they didn’t try therapy. And b) “they’d be open to more possibilities”…like what specifically? The self reports is 20k data points and they got bought by 23andMe; but we could pull PubMed and get to the same result. Nothing seems to work and more importantly other than a believed onset from a post-viral infection, there’s no known even rudementary understanding of how it works. Clinically there’s no known above zero effectiveness non-“say no to everything” modality. What do you suggest these people that have spent 2 to 3 years probably trying everything imaginable attempt?
Like it’s so straight forward. Try talk therapy for a year and then try anti depressants. Oh it didn’t work across a gigantic cohort? And the scientific community generally agrees psychological isn’t a recommended approach? Very Donald Trumpian to say “who knows who knows, let’s keep an open mind here” with no backing on data to stand on other than an intrinsic belief regarding a clinical topic.
You’re suggesting a high rate of false positives. The links show an expected 91% of false negatives (I’m assuming due to the sheer difficulty of diagnosis) and literally no comment of false positives. Not clear how you can defend that assertion.