| This is just hand waving. There is no evidence that this thinking helps with ME. The studies have been debunked and in the UK guidelines have been updated, and clinicians are slowly catching up. The research is used as a textbook example of bad science in some universities. You can watch the primary researchers fail to defend their work here: https://journals.sagepub.com/toc/hpq/22/9 Funding levels for biomedical research on ME/CFS compared to biopsychosocial has been a drop in the ocean. Funding overall is absurdly low relative to disease burden https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32568148/ Regardless, there are hundreds of studies showing biological abnormalities in ME/CFS patients- dysfunctional mitochondria, changes in white/grey matter volume, hypoperfusion in the brain, SPECT scan abnormalities, VO2 max going down after exercise, whatever’s going on with Ron Davis’s nano needle study. You could go on and on- just type ME/CFS in to google scholar and skip past anything written by a UK psychiatrist. You might be confused regarding the lack of a biomarker that’s specific enough for diagnosis. This doesn’t mean that we don’t have pathological findings, just that none of them are found in _every_ patient and also not found in patients suffering from other illnesses. This may well be because ME/CFS isn’t even a single thing. Long Covid researchers are steadily replicating the same findings we have seen in ME/CFS, but faster because they have more funding. Death threats do not tell us anything about whether the science is true. The allegations are often used by researchers to distract from scientific discussion of their work. Still, more on the details of those allegations here: https://me-pedia.org/wiki/Intimidation_and_bullying_of_PACE_... |