[whimsicalism]

> These aren’t real issues worthy of study unless a causal mechanism can be identified

There are plenty of people studying somatic causes of CFS, they just get death threats [0].

I think the focus should be on destigmatizing 'somatic' explanations. That we view somatic explanations as dismissive for real conditions is not a problem with the explanation because some real conditions are psychosomatic and that is a fact of life. It is a problem with the stigma we assign to it.

[0]: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/aug/21/chronic-fati...

[paulmd]

You know, the point of this post was that “medical science is pretty bad at recognizing real, non-somatic causes of these diseases when the cause is not obvious, and instead tends to handwave onto somatic causes, and people generally find this offensive especially when the cause is determined another few years later and they’re asked to pay $50k a year for something their doctor was sure wasn’t real two years ago”.

And yet you’ve somehow both completely missed this point, and deflected onto “but doctors get pushback and even personal threats when they try to double down on this even harder”. Yeah, don’t default to telling patients it’s all in their head, after a while it gets offensive, especially when a few years later you try and charge them $50k a year to treat a disease you told them wasn’t real.

“Somatic research” is fine on paper but in practice it’s usually an excuse to deflect from a disease that cannot be adequately explained in medicalized terms. Everyone knows “somatic” means “in your head” and that inherently leads to a course of treatment that’s “get the patient to believe it’s not real”. And since many of these diseases do have medical causes that are not somatic (but not adequately medicalized for treatment) this gets offensive after a while.