ME - Resources     


 last edited: Feb-28-2017


 Version 2.1



Foreword of September 10, 2016

All of this file's text dates back to April 2012. Several of the links wil not work.

I will try to revise this, but this will probably amount to shortening it, mostly because there still is no rational medical explanation for ME.
Meanwhile, the following list probably is helpful, also because most links are to materials on my site. (You can check this out by hoovering
over links: If these contain "me/RESOURCES/" they will link.)
                                                                                   Maarten Maartensz M.A.
                                                                                   September 10, 2016

Foreword of February 28, 2017

There now is a rational medical explanation for ME. It is here. The item of February 25, 2017 probably is the clearest (for non-biochemists).
I will soon revise ME-Resources, and shorten it a lot, but am not yet so far.

                                                                                   Maarten Maartensz M.A.
                                                                                   February 28, 2017


"The greatness of man      
consists in saying what is true,    
and in acting according to Nature."

   "If we believe absurdities,         
     we shall commit atrocities."    

This the beginning of ME - Resources on my site.

ME - Resources
What follows is the commented list:
links to the same list
minus comments


(Godess of): But what's your job? There's no harm in asking that.
LUCIAN: I'm an anti-cheatist, an anti-quackist, an anti-liarist, and an anti-inflated-egoist. I'm anti all the revolting types like that - and there are plenty of them, as you know.
PHILOSOPHY [smiling]: Well, well! You're quite an anti-body, aren't you?
LUCIAN: I certainly am. You can see why I've got myself aso much disliked, and why I'm in such a dangerous situation. Not that I'm not an expert pro-body too. I'm a pro-truthist, a pro-beautician, a pro-sinceritist, and a pro-everything that's pro-worthy. But I don't find much scope for exercisting my talents in that direction, whereas thousands of people are always queuing up for the anti-treatment. In fact I'm so out of practice as a probody, that I dare say I have lost the knack of it by now - but I'm a real expert at the other part of my profession.
PHILOSOPHY [seriously]: That's bad. They're opposite sides of a coin, as it were. So don't specialize in one at the expense of the other. They should merely be different aspects of the same fundamental attitude.
LUCIAN: Well, you know best, Philosophy. But I'm so constituted that I can't help hating bad types and liking good ones.
   (From: Fishing for phonies, Turner translation, Penguin Classics, p. 177-8)

In the following tables, the authors and titles with links are set apart on one line, with some explanatory comments by me under it. The links are either PDF or HTML-files.

There are the following sections, that correspond to directories:

The present version 2.0 is meant to be rapidly replaced by the next with more resources.

   Some basics relating to ME/CS.
Komaroff Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS

   This is a brief PDF-file by a professor in medicine of Harvard that gives ten bio-chemical
    findings about ME/CFS: ME/CFS is not a mental disease or psychiatric condition

Lesley Ben World Health Organization's placing of ME and CFS

A fairly brief description how the World Health Organization has classified ME and CFS. This is of considerable importance for patients and doctors, since psychiatrists and psyhotherapists (not real scientists) since decades choose to wipe their asses with the classification of the WHO, and instead propose their own pseudo-scientific criterions and socalled "evidence based science" (what results if you lie with statistics and criminally incompetent or insane methodology).

Also, the American Psychiatric Association seems to be trying to reclassify ALL diseases so as to have a psychological dimension, that is lorded over by psychiatrists, in the interests of incomes for psychiatrists, and a somatical dimension, that only will enter  the end of curing the patient (if not rich) after psychiatrists have agreed the patient is ill.

This seems to be planned to effective from 2013.

Carruthers et al Canadian Criterions (for medical fol

     The Canada Criterions (as they are mostly known) for diagnosing ME from 2003,
      prepared by 14 medical specialists for the Canadian government. Note this is
      written mostly - unavoidably for such a report - in medicalese.

     These are the criterions for diagnosing someone as having ME that are taken most
      seriously by real patients with ME and real scientists researching ME. The alternatives
      are either less precise and useful (Fukuda Criterions) or consist almost whole of
      intentionally obscure psyhiatrists waffle (Oxford), that aims underhandedly to
      stigmatize patients with ME as insane if not malingerers, for which reasons patients
      with ME are excluded from all help, which saves the state and the health insurance
      companies enormous amounts of money.

Updated version of July 2011: The International Consensus Criterions

Carruthers et al Canadian Criterions Overview (for non-medical people)

     The same as the above, written by two members of the team, but a lot clearer for
      non-medical people.

      This is probably the best exposition of what is scientifically known about ME/CFS
      in one file.

Carruthers et al ME Consensus Doument

The same as the above medical version of the 2001 Canadian Criterions, but as published
in the Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, with a few additions (that seem not important).

Note this is long, thorough and mostly written in (unavoidable)

Carruthers et al Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria (pdf)

        This is the 2011 revision of the Canadian Criterions.
        (This is the published version. There are also pre-published versions.)

Hyde Little Red Book: A new and simple definition of ME (2006)

      This is by a medical doctor who treated very many patients with ME/CFS and who
      goes his own way.


Magical Medicine (2010)

     This is by professor emeritus Malcolm Hooper, who taught medical chemistry and is a
      very fine overview of what was know scientifically and claimed and done non-
      scientifically as regards ME/CFS in Great-Brittain.

      This is another Must Read for anybody interested in the facts about and around ME,
      written up by someone with a great amount of relevant scientific knowledge.

Hooper Engaging with ME: Lectureslides Sparsholt (extensive, clear) (200

      Nominally, these are the slides for a lecture by professor Malcolm Hooper in 2005, but
       they provide a VERY clear overview of ME if you know a little about it, and also
       provides many excellent or interesting references, links and illustrations.

Twisk et al

Plausible explanations for neurocognitive deficits in ME/CFS (etc.) (2010

      This is the text of a Letter to the Editor of Psychological Medicine.
       It is brief but


CFS-Book: Diagnosing and Treating CFS (27th ed, 2009

      This is the 27th edition of medical doctor Sarah Myhill's CFS-Book, that is quite long
       but is very probable quite useful for anyone with ME or caring for (or about) someone
       with ME.

       Dr. Myhill has treated thousands of patiens with ME since 1982, and with considerable
       success also, while she has the merit - for me - that she conceived of a bio-chemical
       theory to account for the known facts of ME that is very similar to my own, that I
       reached completely independently in 1987 (two years before knowing that ME/CFS
       existed), and that others also have come to, that is best classified briefly as the
       mitochondrial hypothesis or theory, to the effect that the energy-pathway by which
       the mitochondriae produce energy (ATP-ADP-AMP and back) is broken in persons
       with ME.

       Again, this is a Must Read for anybody interested in the facts about and around ME,
       also because it contains very many useful tips.


Stein Guidelines for psychiatrists

      Professor Wessely and his gang, like professors Reeves and Bleijenberg in resp. the US
       and the Netherlands, have since over two decades insisted on totally ludicrous grounds
       that persons with ME are not ill, but are insane or malingerers, albeit it they often,
       use more hypocritical terminology. Since I hold they lie knowingly, I merely summarize
       their real drift: Exclude people with ME/CFS from being medically researched or
       socially supported as ill people.

       Psychiatry, since its inception by the cocaine-addict and un-uncloseted lover of
       of prof. Wilhelm Fliess (also obsessed with noses and cocaine), has never been anything
       like a real science, but consists instead for the most part of tales, that for the most
       part are meant to help psychiatrists to get status and lots of money for selling
       psychobabble to the naive, the stupid, the ignorant and the easily impressed. It is
       neither real medical science nor real science: It is pseudoscience, and persons like
       Wessely, Reeves and Bleijenberg (the last a clinical psychologist, that is, a shrinkish
       type with even less brains and no knowledge at all of medicine) know this very well,
       and probably - if they are at all mentally healtht - take great private personal pride
       in getting away with it.

       Then again: Not all psychiatrists are mad, and not all psychiatrists are bad, and dr.
       Eleanor Stein, who is a psychiatrist, wrote a good set of guidelines concerning how a
       sane and moral psychiatrist should treat his or her patients with ME.      

Unknown Fatigue Chronique (French)

      Professor Wessely, mentioned before, the mad Fraudian still teaching waffle at KCL,
       very often lies, and does so very plausibly and credibly, if one is not as informed as
       he is. One of the lies he spouted effortlessly - see: ME: Back to the Middle Ages
         with professor Simon Wessely - P.S. -
is that (I quote the KCL-liar and KCL-sadist

                'Each country has different syndromes. They don't have CFS in France'

       The above file, in fine French, was located by me within 6 minutes of reading this
       first, and also has the merits of being a good exposition of what ME is, besides
       refuting other lies of Wessely in the linked interview.

       The reason to list it hear is to illustrate my theses that professor Simon Wessely
       is both a pathological quite possibly psychopathic liar (and apparently, like many of
       that ilk, quite charming, superficially) and an evident medical sadist.


       Pain is one of the main symptoms for most persons with ME, again one of the many
       facts prof. Wessely usually conveniently forgets, denies, or pooh-poohs. 

McCleary et al

Pain Practioner (2010)

       This is by the director of the CAA for the American Association of Pain Management.
       It is useful if not deep (and a big download for a few pages) and is here because
       it is so far the only halfway decent file I could find on the topic of managing pain
       from ME, which I have a lot of, since decades also.  


Osler's Web

      Hillary Johnson is an investigative journalist who got ME and then decided to investigate
       why so little is effectively done in the USA to help people with ME. This she did very
       thoroughly and managed to write up and get published as a book, called "Osler's Web"
       (after a 19th C brilliant English medical doctor, William Osler, whose ideas of good
       scientific medicine were very modern, even in this day, for they were much like

       The summary of the book is: There has been an enormous amount of corruption,
       fraudulence, incompetence and intentional deception in the US, especially on the part
       of the CDC, and the reasons why, apart from the theft of millions, personal vanity,
       evident sadism and lust for power and a well paid easy job for the main perpetrators
       at the CDC are still unclear (and may be tied up with state politicking and health
       insurance intrigueing or simply - as in the case of dr. Reeves - personal corruption).

       The book is fine and fat and thorough, and since it was published also in the US
       and Johnson is American, one may safely infer that Johnson's facts - that might
       easily be dismissed but for the fact that she named names, quoted documents, gives
       dates etc. etc. - will stand up in a US court, and hence are probably most or all
       quite as she wrote.

       It cannot be quoted here (except for some parts) because Johnson retains the
       copyright and mostly forbids that, quite justifiedly also, because she is ill with
       ME, needs an income, and wrote and researched the book.

Neal Karlen interview with Hillary Johnson

Continueing the previous note: What I did find was a good and not long interview with Hillary Johnson, which I included because I believe nearly all really good things in the human world are done by original courageous individuals who refuse to conform  to accepted prejudices and refuse to collaborate with corrupt holders of power for the benefits of payment and protection by the powerful.

Hillary Johnson is a very brave woman, and knowingly took the risk of having her  life and health destroyed on purpose by many of the corrupt medical bureaucrats whose doings and crimes she unearthed.

DSM-5 Dx Revision Watch

The above link is to Suzy Chapman's site about the DSM-5, that manages to
be far clearer and far more objective than what
the American Psychiatric Association (APA) offers.

The DSM-5 is the fifth in a series of Diagnostic Statistical Manuals compiled by
the American Psychiatric Association, so as to arrive at sets of symptoms to diagnose persons with some form of psychological distress or problem in an
evidence based agreed upon science based manner.

This is a respectable end but lately, at least since the DSM-IV, this Manual
is being turned into an instrument to serve the interests of psychiatrists,
politicians and health-insurors by redefining symptoms, description and terms
in ways that best serve these interests while seeming to be scientific.

This is most pronounced in the proposals for the DSM-5, that is intended to be
in force from 2013 onwards, and that seems to seek to add a psychological
component to many bodily diseases, and to insist on treating these psychological ailments, together with, or only as therapies for many diseases, and to seek to reclassify diseases with an unknown etiology or cause as primarily or only
as caused by psychiatric symptoms ("dysfunctional beliefs", "neurasthenia)
to be exclusively or predominantly treated by psychotherapy and/or forced |
'healthy exercise'.

The last is in particular so for ME, CFS, Fybromyalgia and similar diseases,
that the World Health Organisation, which is a body of medical doctors of
all kinds, rather than an interest group of psychiatrists, classifies and has
classified as somatic diseases, of a neurological kind, expressly without
psychitatric diagnosis.

For this reason, combined with the fact that in many states psychiatrists
tend to have a stronger influence on political decision making than other
groups of medical men, the contents of the DSM-5 to be, are of rather
great importance, since as soon as it is accepted, anyone runs the risk to be 'scientifically' diagnosed in terms that amount in non-medicalese non-euphemistic terms to 'malinger or insane', and "therefore" not to be tested for somatic symptoms, not to be entitled to help and support somatically ill persons get, and to be forced to Cognitive Behavourial Therapy - forcedto help psychiatrists to make money for themselves from the pseudoscience they peddle - to "cure" them from the "delusion" that patients with ME/CFS, Fibromyalgia, and many other diseases with an unknown aetiology, are somatically ill, and to force them to do labour in the form of Gradual Exercise Therapy so as to teach them correct discipline and work modes.

dr. Allen Frances Ph.D.
A Warning Sign on the Road to DSM‐5: Beware of its Unintended Consequences

This is a very interesting essay by the chief-editor of the DSM-IV, professor dr. Allan Frances MD,
professor emeritus psychiatry of Duke University, on the many dangers he sees - mostly quite
correctly, in my fairly well-informed opinion - of the DSM-5-as-planned-to-be.

I think this is from 2009: Since then dr. Frances has written quite a lot more on the subject,
notably in Huffington Post and in Psychology Today, where he has a column DSM5 in distress.

In case you think it is odd for a psychiatrist to disagree on the merits of psychiatry, here
are two links:

dr. W.S. McCulloch Ph.D.
The Past of an Delusion

This is from 1951, and is the text of a public speech by the - then - professor of
psychiatry McCulloch about the reasons why he had come to hold that psychiatry
is not a real science but a delusion, an insight that motivated McCulloch to become
one of the founders of cybernetics.

dr. Thomas Szasz Ph.D.
The myth of mental illness

Prof.dr. Thomas Szasz is an emeritus professor of psychiatry who has now for over 5 decades argued psychiatry is normally hardly a science and often quite dangerous to patients if also quite profitable to psychiatrists.

He got world-famous in the 1960-ies with his book The myth of mental illness that
unfortunately did not get the influence or the rational discussion it deserves.

Here is a series of video-interviews with dr. Szasz from 2007 at the University of Birmingham in the UK:

And here is an interview with him from 2001 (from the Wayback Machine).

CFSIDSAA Statement to DSM-5 Taskforce

This is the April 2010 proposal of the CFSIDSAA to the DSM-5 Taskforce.
(CFIDSSAA = The CFIDS Association of America.  CFIDS = Chronic Fatigue and Immune Deficiency Syndrome.)

dr. J. Phillips, dr. Allen Frances et al.
The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis (pdf 426 KB )
Alternatively: The same in html
(288 Kb)

This is a discussion ("pluralogue) of the six questions meant in the title, posed and formulated by dr. Allen Frances, who is the chief editor of the DSM-IV and who also, indeed like the chief editor of the DSM-III, dr. Robert Spitzer, is quite unhappy with and quite critical of the DSM-5. The participants in the discussion are dr. Frances who poses the questions; dr. Phillips who introduces and concludes them, and 23 psychiatrists who answered them and are in turn answered by dr. Frances.

dr. J. Phillips, dr. Allen Frances et al.
The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 2: issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis (Provisional)  (pdf 293 Kb)

This is part 2 of the previous item, at the time of writing Provisional and only available in pdf.

Donald Ewen Cameron

An illustration of what psychiatrists have done and may do: A monstrous - and extremely dangerous - past president of the American Psychiatric Association, as written up on Wikipedia. (There is more information on the doings and the victims of this man on internet, notably a BBC-documentary.)

Action T4  

An illustration of what medical doctors and psychiatrists have done and may do if - they claim that - the interests of the state or the people demand it: A project to terminate the lives - and the costs involved in keeping alive - of the ill, the insane and the mentally subnormal.


Mitochondria are tiny parts of human cells in which the energy is generated the cell can use, by the use of some pretty amazing and beautiful bio-chemistry, in which ATP is broken down to ADP which is broken down to AMP, releasing energy, and then rebuilt to ATP.

See below for more: This is a very interesting subject for anyone who wishes to know how one does manage to do anything with one's body and whence one does get the energy to do it.

Bassett Mitochondria: An Overview

This is a clear overview of the science involved in the subject,
written for intelligent laymen with some basic knowledge of science.

Vancouver Hospital Understanding Mitochondrial Disorders

This is a clear overview of the subject in not so many pages for laymen.
It is a bit simpler and less detailed than the previous item.

Parik et al Myths and facts about mitochondrial diseases

This is a short and clear summing up of what its title says. Like the previous
two items it is helpful for patients who are not medically trained or specially

Myhill et al Chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction

This is a VERY interesting paper that originally appeared in the Int J Clin Exp Med
(as they themselves abbreviate it) in 2009 for at least two reasons, for me:

First, it outlines almost exactly the theory I myself found in 1987, before knowing
about ME, then being ill since 1.1.1979 and having rather extensive statistics on
my own experiences with various supplements, after diving into some medical and
biochemical textbooks. I wrote this theory out in Dutch and have given it to
several medical doctors none of whom did anything with it (and the average G.P.
or "medical specialist" an average patients gets to see is not a research scientist
at all nor trained as one, but is trained as a practitioner of medicine rather than
anything else).

Second, it is an eminently sensible theory, that should get the research funding
to get it properly tested, investigated, tweaked and, if it stands up, used on a
wide scale.

This is highly recommended and fairly readable also for laymen. If you want to
see - as I was pleased to discover myself - what line of thought I followed in
1987 you should look at figure 1:

I copied this because this is just the line of reasoning and indeed manner of illustrations I followed in 1987. It is explained in - various degrees of - detail in handbooks of biochemistry or musdcle physiology, and is in itself a rather amazing and beautiful bit of biochemistry.

And incidentally, the Mitochondrial Hypothesis for ME/CFS is co-tenable with the XMRV Hypothesis for the same, for a reason based set out by an analogy: If one can manage to tweak the water or gas supplies to a house in which people live who cannot leave it (as patients live in their bodies), then you can be sure of upsetting a great manner of routines in the house that depend, directly or indirectly, on ordinary supplies of water or gas.

Also incidentally: I do not know which hypothesis is correct if any or both, and so far no one knows, but two advantages I personally see with the mitochondrial hypothesis is that I don't feel really optimistic about harbouring a retrovirus, if I do, and that, as I said, I dreamt up this theory myself, on the basis of rather good statistics of my situation and experiences and experiments with supplements from 1985-1988. (But this is a matter of personal feeling, and facts are facts whatever one's feelings about them.)

Bell ME/CFS as a Mitochondrial Disease

This is a short and quite clear exposion of doctor David Bell, who treated a large
number of patients with ME of the mitochondrial hypothesis for ME/CFS.



This section contains scientific discussions and matters relevant to the
scientific study of ME.

Since there are at present in broad terms two kinds of science involved
in that study, namely pseudo science (of the CDC, of KCL, of the
University of Nijmegen i.a.), generally of a (pseudo-)psychiatric kind,
and real science, there are sections for both.

It is to be noted that especially in this section and its subsections
there is FAR more material on the internet than is present here.

Maartensz - Feb 21, 2017
Maartensz - Feb 24, 2017 me+ME+Crisis: About ME/CFS - 0: To my GP (Dutch + English)
Maartensz - Feb 25, 2017 me+ME+Crisis: About ME/CFS - 1: Some updates about Oystein Fluge and Ron Davis
Maartensz - Feb 26, 2017 me+ME+Crisis: About ME/CFS - 2: On  being early
Oystein Fluge + 16 others: Jan 3, 2017

These are four files from the end of February of 2017, that sketch my reactions to - especially - Oystein Fluge's results,
with 200 patiens and 102 healthy matches,
with many findings of many significant differences (especially in amino-acids
of various kinds) between persons with ME/CFS and healthy persons.

I think this is best explained with all the links, in the Feb 25, 2017 item above.

For those who think they can read the biochemistry, the paper by Fluge + 16 others is last. (I read it, but with difficulties.)

Maartensz Scientific Realism versus Postmodernism

This is a short and clear exposition that should be accessible to anyone
intelligent enough to be able to study a real science.

By way of introduction:

It is highly probable, given my obvious great intelligence and learning and most
excellent degrees, that if I had been healthy or indeed if I would have had some
help with my medically agreed upon real, debilitating and painful invalidity, I had
been an academic employed in research and teaching of philosophy of science,
methodologogy and/or mathematical logic.

As outlined in the above SCIENCE OF ME this is of considerable important
in that ME-patients lifes are being destroyed and ruined on the basis of
truly sickeningly stupid pseudo-science the creation and reception of which
I can only explain by sadism and/or utter corruption on the part of those
who generated this irrational trash and by utter indifference of the majority
of medical doctors to the suffering of patients with ME/CFS.

Human degenerates like Wessely, White, Bleijenberg and Van der Meer, the
modern doctors MEngele of ME, should have been kicked out of science and
their professional associations since decades for being grossly intellectually
incompetent besides being morally sick and lowering the reputations of
medical doctors, psychiatrists and psychotherapists to the level of sick
sadistic servants of their own perversions and of politicians and health-

And indeed the enduring strength and power of degenerates - check the link! -
Wessely, White, Bleijenberg and Van der Meer, who propound fallacies in
the name of sciene to please their own perversions and to suck up to
politicians and health insurors
, is that so very few people have real knowledge
of real science and real knowledge of its logical, philosophical and methodological

I do, and the link is a translation of a Dutch piece I wrote several years ago,
that quite clearly outlines a 9-fold contrast of oppositions between real science
and pseudo science, also in terms any intelligent reader can grasp.

Incidentally, the reader should realize that, especially since the rise of post-
modernism (that since its rise has not disappeared, since its acolytes are
professors in soft "sciences" allover the world) and since the radical decline
in standards of admission and teaching in all but the very best universities
in the West, numerically and proportional there are at present far more
pseudo scientists than real scientists, and this will remain so the coming
generation at least, apart from a worldwide revolution or the disappearance
or collapse of human civilization, for a reason the physicist Max Planck already
noticed, next to the ordinary facts about power, groupthinking and the
average human profligacy, also prominent amongst academics, and especially
academics in pseudo-sciences:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents
and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents
eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

Sad but realistic.

Maartensz Philosophical Foundations of Rational Science

This I published in 2009 on my site with the title "Ten good modern philosophy texts" but since all of them are about the present title I chose that one for this occasion.

Note that it concerns basically a pile of books that, when put on top of each other may be as tall as I am (1.95 m), whence it may be inferred with utter certainty that it is a LOT of reading.

But it is - or would be - very interesting reading, that is quite relevant to the real understanding of real science, and indeed I doubt that anybody does have a real understanding of real science that does not have most of the scientific, logical and mathematical knowledge outline in items 9 and 10 of my text.

Incidentally, in case you asked 'But how come there are real good physicists who are real good physicists without having bothered to read those texts?' my answer is that a real good physicist imbibed most of that knowledge while learning physics (at a real good university), for I am not talking of pseudo-scientific posturing but about the real intellectual, mathematical and logical foundations of ALL real science. (Indeed, you can pick up most of it in Richard Feynman's "Lectures on Physics", if you are interested in physics and intelligent enough).

Updated version from January 2011 for rational background

This is a quite short (11 Kb) but quite useful list of books, papers and internet
material about which the unknown write starts with writing:

List of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) resources for doctors

Suggested use. All but one of the following resources are free.
I suggest doctors acquire  and review all of them.

De Meirleir et al Unraveling the origins of Myalgic Encephalomyelitis

This consists of the slides of a talk professor De Meirleir - one of the co-authors of
the Canada Criterions, for which see above - gave in May 2009. Its subtitle is:
"Gastrointestinal dysfunction, Production of Neurotoxins and Environmental Exposure".

It is quite instructive, especially if you have been dipping in some of the literature
mentioned in this file, and professor De Meirleir has a great and deserved reputation among persons with ME for helping them and writing very sensible science about ME/CFS: He is a real scientist and real medical doctor who does and thinks like a real scientist and real medical doctor should.


Pseudoscience is the science of deception by abusing science for ends it is not designed for. Believers in pseudo science generally believe it is real science, usually for lack of scientific knowledge or strong personal, political or religious interests or prejudices.

The originators of it come in several flavours, depending on their ends, methods and state of (self)delusion. The Viennese psychiatrist Sigmund Freud, like most or all of his well-known contemporary psychiatric competitors, was for the greatest part a conscious pseudo and fraud; many of his psychiatric followers and of other psychiatric men of ideas and phrases, generally are more deluded and less clever, and indeed may do well (sometimes) for respectable reasons, simply because they mean to be helping people and have found some understanding of them somehow.

Those who want to know more about pseudo sciences as sets of hoaxes, delusions, scams, conmanship and outright insanity are recommended to read Martin  Gardner's "Fads and fallacies in the name of science" and "Science: Good, Bad and  Bogus", both also interesting for anyone interested in science anyway, and very well nwritten and informed.

The pseudo-psychiatry of the schools of Wessely, White, Bleijenberg, Fink and other psychiatric 'specialists on CFS' are conscious bogus scientists, of whom the kindest explanation is that they, at least and in any case, try to serve their  own interests and those of their psychiatrc and psychotherapeutical colleagues.

In fact, this is the case for the vast majority of the schools and therapies 'in the  name of science' psychiatrists and psychotherapists have practised and written books about and did 'evidence based' science in (methodologically rotten usually invalid statistics), for the same reason that the vast majority of the religions must be mistaken since they mutually contradict each other and both as regards  how things are to be explained and how one should act.

For a true and still valid description of psychiatry by the former professor of psychiatry, later professor of neurophysiology and one of the founding fathers of cybernetics and neural networks see McCulloch vs. Wessely and for a true and still valid description see the fundamental description of what pseudoscience is by the worldfamous physicist Richard Feynman see: Feynman vs Wessely.


Real science is vastly different from pseudo science in methods, ends, outlook, and assumptions, and is concerned with finding the real truth about real facts, events and processes by means of intersubjective objective methods of experiment and research, logical and mathematical argument, and proper design and methodology.

It is mostly but not solely found in the hard (as opposed to soft) sciences like physics, chemistry, bio-chemistry and applied and pure mathematics. The reasons these sciences are real is mostly because their subject-matters have been shown to be amenable to mathematical methods, concepts and theories, and to be open to repeatable experimental testing, while also being concerned with things that are fairly simple or general, rather than complex and variegated: Each atom of copper has the same properties as any other, apart from location; each human being is uniquely differenf from any other human being and vastly more complicated than an atom.

Real science started with Galileo, who was the first to see and state clearlythat real science must be based on careful experimentally established facts and conceived in logical and mathematical terms, since the Book of Nature,in so far as a man's mind can read and understand it, is written in mathematics or only comprehensible mathematically (as in statisticalmechanics) for a human mind.

The reason why mathematics is so important is that it is the scienceof arbitrary structures and everything is some kind of structure at least, apart from whatever else it may be (such as pleasant to the
eye or taste).


This section differs from the others in supplying links to websites concerned with ME that are not on this site.

I will have to update this but for the moment copy my ME - sites file (with one deletion) where you'll find more information about the following sites and/or files:

Most  useful

InvestInMe Fine English site, much info
Phoenix Forums Many patients
Phoenix Rising - Cort Johnson American patient
ME Action UK British patients and activists
ME Agenda
Fine English site
Dx Revision Watch
Fine English site about DSM-5
A Hummingbirds' Guide
Australian patient, much info

Medical Background

Mette Andersen Danish MD and patient
DoctorMyhill.com English MD
Dr Speedy
Australian MD and patient

Research Background

Malcom Hooper English scientist
InvestInMe Many papers by prof Hooper
InvestInMe: InfoCentreLibrary Fine collection of ME-material
Hillary Johnson American investigative journalist

Most of these sites contains a lot of information and very many links to other sites.


XMRV is the acronym of a recently discovered retrovirus (HIV is another) for which
there was evidence that it is relevant to ME/CFS and to prostate cancer.

Personally speaking, I decided when I first heard of XMRV not to dive into
the subject, because I do not know much biochemistry nor any retrovirology
and do not have the health to rapidly read into it.

That was a decision that saved me a lot of work, and worked out well in the
sense that at the time of writing - April 5, 2012 - it seems likely XMRV is not relevant to ME/CFS nor to prostate cancer: The article in Science that started the commotion around XMRV - for many patients believed this must be IT: The cause with the hope for a fast cure via anti-viral medunces - has been withdrawn, as was a later paper by drs. Lon and Alter.

The present situation is that apart from dr. Mikovits - who meanwhile was dismissed from the WPI and is in litigation with that institution - and some patients, very few if any retrovirologists and few medical doctors believe her theory that ME/CFS (and Fibromyalgia and autism, and perhaps more diseases) is caused by HGRV (which is what dr. Mikovits now believes to be the culprit: A so far unknown virus that is much like XMRV, but is not that, for XMRV is most likely a lab-contaminant, as she agrees with the US Blood Work Group that investigated the matter, with over 20 authors, of which dr. Mikovits was one).

As I said, few believe this theory, but dr. Ian Lipkin has done research that will probably be reported in the first half of 2012 that will either confirm dr. Mikovits was mistaken or cause a lot of publicity, and that may also have other useful

Unknown XMRV factsheet

This is just what it says, seems written by a specialist, and is
comprises 3 clear pages and 12 suggested readings.

Ortho-moleculair XMRV: De 'missing link' bij ME/CFS? (Dutch)

This is an interesting article by someone who knows medicine about quite
a few aspects of the XMRV controversy in February 2010. Clear, for laymen,
not long, with pictures of Dr. Judy Mikovits and Prof. Dr. Kenny de Meirleir.


Xenotropic Murine Leukemia Virus-Related Virus in Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Prostate Cancer (2010)

This is a short and clear article as stated in its title. It is here because it seems
probable there is a link between XMRV and prostate cancer and my father died
of that.


See also: ME -Documentation and ME - Resources - Copyrights

NEW (April 5 2012)


NEW (April 5 2012)

This is a new version of ME-Resources, that I have numbered 2.0 and that replaces version 1.2 of October 29 last.

There are additions in the above, especially in the DSM-5 section, and there are some removals, especially in the XMRV-section and also of most of my own pieces in Nederlog.

My reason to remove most of the XMRV-material (there will be new recent material soon) is that it seems a dead hypothesis to me at present, even if it is true, which I consider most unlikely.

My reason to remove most of my own material is not that I disagree with it but that it is diplomatic to leave out some of my sharper formulations, that I can probably uphold in court if pressed (I have very good degrees in psychology and philosophy; I am nearly 62; my ex and I both fell ill with EBV in January 1979, when I was 28 and she 24; and we fell ill in our first year of study in the university, and have been uncontroversially ill the first 10 years: It was only in 1988-1991 that the systematic slander and defamation of patients like my ex-wife and myself was started by Reeves, Holmes, Wessely and Bleijenberg).

Below follows a dotted list with titles and links to material that is new on my site, but that may be quite old (some that isn't yet on it will be).

All of the new material has been gathered over the last 2 1/2 years from the internet. I reproduce it on my sites because I think it either is or may be important to people with ME/CFS and perhaps also for researchers, though my main target group consists of people like myself: With a diagnosis of ME/CFS and with enough education, intelligence, health and energy to read this kind of material.

Except when it explicitly says so, none of the material linked in this text is mine, and I accordingly claim no copyright in it. I have not changed anything in any text that is not by myself, and have generally reproduced material of others as I found it on the internet, quite often with one change, namely in the title of the file.

The reason for changing the titles of files is normally that there is rather a lot of material in and around medicine on the internet that only has a non-descriptive title, such as a long numeral, and I generally have renamed such file-titles with my own descriptive name, that often mention the main author and either part of the title or the subject.

I have never changed the contents of the text of others (or if I did it was in html and I either gave a clarification with an indication it was by me or I provided a link). Then again, I have no guarantee others did not make such changes, though I believe the chance this happened is small.

I have no copyright claims in materials on my site that were not written by me. I reproduce material of others on my site because I found them on the net on some publicly accessible site, and believe they are of sufficient interest to others with my disease or to researchers into my disease to reproduce and make wider known.

If you do hold a copyright and do not desire it on my site, you can mail me and I may remove it (though I probably will not do so if I consider it of legal or moral importance to myself or other patients).

Here is the list of what is in the section NEW on my site in ME-Resources as of April 5 2012. I start with type indications for the kinds of files and the titles I give may be not quite the same as given in the body of the actual text:

Note the above is mostly unsorted and in no particular order of importance: I will later sort this and add more.

And as is, the last file is the best read, that explains well why Charcot and Freud were frauds, and must have known they were. It is part of a book that found wide acclaim.

NEW (April 21 2012)

Here is the list of what was added betwee April 5 and April 21 2012.
This is all in the DSM-5 directory, since it is about psychiatry, psychiatrists, and the abuses, misdiagnosis and lack of a rational scientific foundation of psychiatry.

  ME: ME and Human Rights

This is again just what it says: A full listing of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, both in English and in Dutch, with an indication why they matter and which of these rights have been - knowingly and on purpose - broken in my case with ME in Amsterdam.

  ME: Back to the Middle Ages with professor Simon Wessely

There are, no doubt, especially amongst my "colleagues" who are "practising psychologists"  and such, some persons who consider themselves learned, rational and reasonable, who would like to argue that I am somewhat mistaken in assessing the human-all-too-human weaknesses of professor Simon Wessely, a person I hold to be (and I just happen to be both older and considerably more intelligent and learned than he is) a sadist who also knows he is a sadist, but probably will not admit it until he falls in the hands of a guy like him, when professor Wessely, in his human equivalent Lavrenti Beria's gloating words about his victims

"will recite the Athenasian Creed"

after a few doses of CBT and GET he will then get.

Anyway... all who doubt professor Wessely is a real sadist and also quite mad the last incidentally in a way quite a few psyhiatrists seem to be evidently mad, should read  the above and following piece, and in particular 7: Professor Simon Wessely's  many mental issues for which see below.


ME - Resources
What follows is the list minus comments:
links to the same list with the comments




Komaroff Ten discoveries about the biology of CFS

Ben World Health Organization's placing of ME and CFS

Carruthers et al Canadian Criterions (for medical folks - 2003)

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis: International Consensus Criteria (pdf) (2011)

Carruthers et al Canadian Criterions Overview (for all folks)

ME Consensus Doument

Hyde Little Red Book: A new and simple definition of ME (2006)


Magical Medicine (2010)

Hooper Engaging with ME: Lectureslides Sparsholt (extensive, clear) (2005)

Twisk et al

Plausible explanations for neurocognitive deficits in ME/CFS (etc.) (2010)


CFS-Book: Diagnosing and Treating CFS (27th ed, 2009)

Stein Guidelines for psychiatrists

Unknown Fatigue Chronique (French)


McCleary et al

Pain Practioner (2010)


Neal Karlen interview


Suzy Chapman
Dx Revision Watch (was: dsm5watch, a name SLAPPed by the APA)

W.S. McCulloch: The Past of a Delusion

A. Frances: On the DSM-5

CFSIDSAA Statement to DSM-5 Taskforce

J. Phillips, A. Frances et al. The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis (pdf 426 KB )
Alternatively: The same in html (288 Kb)

J. Phillips, A. Frances et al. The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 2: issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis (Provisional) 
(pdf 293 Kb) 

Wikipedia Donald Ewen Cameron

Action T4


Bassett Mitochondria: An Overview

Vancouver Hospital Understanding Mitochondrial Disorders

Parik et al Myths and facts about mitochondrial diseases

Myhill et al Chronic fatigue syndrome and mitochondrial dysfunction

Bell ME/CFS as a Mitochondrial Disease


Maartensz Scientific Realism versus Postmodernism

Maartensz Philosophical Foundations of Rational Science


List of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) resources for doctors


This section differs from the others in supplying links to websites
concerned with ME that are not on this site.

I will have to update this but for the moment copy my ME - sites file (with one deletion) where you'll find more information about the following sites and/or files:

Most  useful

InvestInMe Fine English site, much info
Phoenix Forums Many patients
Phoenix Rising - Cort Johnson American patient
ME Action UK British patients and activists
ME Agenda
Fine English site
Dx Revision Watch
Fine English site about DSM-5
A Hummingbirds' Guide
Australian patient, much info

Medical Background

Mette Andersen Danish MD and patient
DoctorMyhill.com English MD
Dr Speedy
Australian MD and patient

Research Background

Malcom Hooper English scientist
InvestInMe Many papers by prof Hooper
InvestInMe: InfoCentreLibrary Fine collection of ME-material
Hillary Johnson American investigative journalist

Most of these sites contains a lot of information and very many links to other sites.

 (*) Quand on a pris le parti de ne voir que ceux qui sont capables de traiter avec vous aux termes de la morale, de la vertu, de la raison, de la vérité, en ne regardant les conventions, les vanités, les étiquettes, que comme les supports de la société civile; quand, dis-je, on a pris ce parti (et il faut bien le prendre, sous peine d'être sot, faible ou vil), il arrive qu'on vit à peu près solitaire.

Version: 2.0 -  Apr 5, 2012: This is a considerable extension in material, soon to be followed by more.
Version: 2.1 -  Apr 21, 2012: Meanwhile added items in the DSM-5 section relating to six fundamental questions about psychiatry and to dr. Thomasz Szasz, dr. Donald Ewen Cameron and the Action T4.

It is 2017 now, and I should soon revise all of the above. Meanwhile here are the reasons why.

        home - index - top - mail