Skip to main content

Archived Comments for: Chronic fatigue syndrome: aetiology, diagnosis and treatment

Back to article

  1. Too many errors for a reputable journal

    Ellen Goudsmit, UEL

    12 May 2010

    Allergic encephalomyelitis? Surely they mean myalgic encephalomyelitis. Alas, it was just the first of a number of oddities and highly uncritical statements. 'Discomfort post effort' as a minor criterion? Isn't it post-exertional fatigue? That's vague enough. Why make things worse? CFS affects 2.5% of the population? I think the research reported 2.6% using the CDC criteria 1994 and including patients with comorbid psychiatric disorders. Where's pacing, rated consistently as one of the three most helpful strategies for CFS. Safer than graded exercise and not counter-intuitative (if minor activity triggers symptoms, why should increasing minor exertion decrease it? Isn't it like suggesting to a smoker with lung cancer that smoking a few more every few days might help improve their condition? Remember, the alleged link between deconditioning and CFS is based on an assumption, not science. And deconditioning cannot explain some of the immunological and metabolic abnormalities identified in a subset.

    Does graded activity actually increase activity levels? Come on psychiatrists. Stop assuming and making unsubstantiated claims; let's see some evidence. Psychological medicine is still a science. Attention to detail matters.

    Competing interests

    None declared