"The mild and the
long-suffering may suffer forever in this world.
As long as the patient will suffer,
the cruel will kick."
-- Sidney Smith
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good
men to do nothing."
| "A person may
cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his
inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them
for the injury."
John Stuart Mill,
Three days ago I wrote about a
Good article in The Times about ME and
yesterday I was
pleased to have seen two more, to which I gave the links. Here is a third
good one that appeared today:
As it happens, this is by a sports journalist of the Daily mail, whose wife
has ME. The Lynn he mentions is Lynn Gilderdale, also mentioned
But my real subject of today is in the title - and the number 0 indicates
that it is the beginning of what may be considerable series, quite possibly
in both Dutch and English (though I will not put much Dutch in my English
texts), and quite likely in various styles, moods, tones and vocabularies.
For the moment, I am mostly serious, with some mockery and anger smoldering
Studies in MEdical Sadism - 0
2. The text to be reviewed and the review.
I have decided to spend some time and energy on Studies in
MEdical Sadism, namely into the beliefs of the English psychiatric
school that is associated with the names of messrs. Wessely, White,
Sharp, Clare (and related schools of thought in America, as in the
CDC), and that especially as regards ME, a disease that I now have for
32 years, since I was 28, and that has destroyed almost all my social
and scientific chances, and has left me poor, discriminated and
without help for all these years, except for minimal dole, with more
than two decades of pain, while I have the best possible degree in
psychology and an excellent degree in philosophy, and I had hoped, and
indeed expected, in view of my undisputed intellectual brilliance, to
be able to have a university career.
While messrs Wessely, White, Sharp, Clare etc. are not party
to my falling ill on January 1, 1979, they are party to my not
getting any help whatsoever, other than dole, in spite of being ill
for 32 years, and that because they have during this time
surrected and perpetuated the myth that ME is a psychiatric disorder,
that should not be treated by medical specialists other than
In my view, that is an insane idea, not because I am ill,
but because of the sort of reasoning they employ; the great amount of
malice they have spouted; and the many suicides and destroyed lifes
they have caused or contributed to, while having no rational
scientific evidence for their theories whatsoever.
Also, it is my own belief that by far the best scientific
hypothesis for their actions with regards to ME (which they call CFS)
is twofold: (1) They are trying to increase the market for
psychotherapy of their kind, and it would be financially very pleasant
for them and their colleagues to be able to treat physically ill
people as if they were mentally ill, or at least also mentally ill and
(2) they seem to me, who is a psychologist who also read a fair
amount of psychiatry, quite possibly unconsciously, to be of a
sadistic bend of mind. (Also, it is not unlikely some of them are
simply mad, as psychiatrists often have been, history has shown
In any case, my own hypothesis about their reasons to style
me and 17 million other people suffering from the same or very
similar symptoms as I do, namely as if I and they have a psychosomatic
disorder, a somatoform disorder, a psychogenic disorder etc., while
there in fact is good medical evidence of many kinds that many people
with the symptoms of ME have a real and serious physical disease, and
while the World Health Organization has since 1969 insisted that ME
is a serious neurological disease, and since 1992 that it is NOT a
psychiatric disorder, is at least
as well-founded, as scientific and as rational about this handful of
pretentious pseudoscientists as is their hypothesis that some
17 million people with ME, including myself, do not have a
physical disease but some strange psychic morbidity that is - they
claim - caused by "dysfunctional beliefs".
And I am quite willing to discuss, in an objective court of
law, the two alternatives as they stand:
Either I am mad and so are 17 million persons from
allover the world, who complain of the same symptoms as I do, and who
believe, as many of their doctors do, that they have a hitherto
medically unexplained disease - or else this handful of
professors of psychiatry is grossly incompetent or possibly
unconsciously sadistic, and quite conceivably both.
Since I have little health and energy, I will spend the time and
energy on Studies in MEdical Sadism piecemeal, and bit
by bit, but indeed it is my contention that (1) there is
such a thing as medical sadism, and I have seen rather a lot of it the
last 32 years (in which I also have been happy to see quite a few very
good doctors and professors of medicine and psychology) and (2)
it ought to be made a special subject of study, by patients
organizations, and also in schools of medicine, since (3) while
the majority of medical doctors undoubtedly is bona fides and
competent, this has evidently not been the case in psychiatry and
psychotherapy since 1900, though there have been competent and honest
psychiatrists as well, and (4) the position of any medical
doctor, not only psychiatrists, though these are especially prone to
it, is all too easily corrupted in the same way as politicians may be,
and often are: "All power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely". (Lord Acton, 1895)
This then is the start on what may turn into a book or a
Ph.D. of my Studies in MEdical Sadism a.k.a. Cognitve
Psychological Therapy for Sadism in Psychiatrists and Psychotherapists.
(Consultations may be given in my home, after payment of a suitable
For the moment I will be doing some light exercises based on a
piece of text from
Kumar and Clark - Clinical Medicine
By Parveen Kumar, CBE, BSc, MD, FRCP, FRCP (Edin), Professor of
Clinical Medical Education, Barts and The London, Queen Mary's
School of Medicine and Dentistry, University of London, and Honorary
Consultant Physician and Gastroenterologist, Barts and The London
NHS Trust, London, UK; and Michael Clark, MD, FRCP, Honorary Senior
Lecturer, Barts and The London, Queen Mary's School of Medicine and
Dentistry, University of London, UK
ISBN 0702027634 · Paperback · 1528 Pages · 1283 Illustrations
Saunders · Published August 2005
that I found on the internet.
I start with a short overview of some of the techniques and
tricks of psychobabble and - as I call it - psychosadism
(albeit unconscious, if indeed it is, for the firm proof of which
probably a combination of thumbscrews and truthserum are necessary,
for trained professors of psychiatry seldom or never have excellent
minds, but usually are very slippery, and very persistent in their
delusions and quackery).
What one easily and often meets in their writings, especially about
ME (or CFS as they call it, contrary to the medical doctors of the
World Health Organization, according to whom, since 1969, the disease
should be called Myalgic Encephalomyelitis or Encephalopathy, and is a
neurological disease, albeit so far of unknown cause and etiology,
which also, since 1992, is NOT a psychiatric disorder), are the
following pecularities, idiosyncracies, fallacies, and abuses, among
cultivated ambiguities of language of many kinds, calculating at
seeming to say one thing while conveying another
- lack of quantification
studious avoidance of quantifying terms like "all", "many",
"some", "60 percent" in preference for unqualified nouns:
"Patients", "Doctors" etc.
- may, can, could, might
all the vagaries, ambiguities, innuendos, uncertainties and
unclarities these English terms fall prey to
definitions and redefinitions of terms that sound like science but
are mere prejudice
- insinuation, defamation
manifold discriminations and denigrations of patients by all
manner of insinuations and defamation, dressed up as "psychiatric
Next, readers innocent of real science should know at least
the following two points
real science (physics, chemistry) is materialistic in outlook:
There are no spirits, souls, angels or divinities (in science,
regardless of the religious beliefs of the scientist)
most real scientists who have looked into psychiatry or psychology
consider these subjects not real sciences
the practical test of a real science is that it allows the
creation of technological artefacts that exist and work without
any belief in them.
Here it should also be noted that in fact over the last 100 year
most of the teachings of various schools of psychiatry, e.g. about the
causes of depression, schizophrenia, stomach ulcers and homosexuality
have been scientifically refuted, generally not by
psychiatrists who perpetuated and defended their illusions, but by by
biochemists, neurologists or brain scientists (who as a rule know
much more of science and mathematics than psychiatrists, who tend
to do bad in both).
There are three other points I should briefly mention before
turning to the piece of psychiatric prose I am going to review:
- medical pretentiousness
Many doctors of medicine are quite pretentious folks, strongly
convinced of their own excellence, power and merit. Personally, I am
similarly inclined about myself, and I have no problem if others
are, and indeed I have met medical doctors who were very intelligent,
very hardworking, very learned, and very moral. However, I have
never met any psychiatrist or psychotherapist of whom I could
honestly say the same, and most I spoke with seemed benighted fools to
me, or best people with good intentions but no special intelligence -
and here one should realize that the really good students in medicine
rarely end up as a psychiatrist, that seems to be especially a
specialism for such students of medicine who had some personal issues,
and that just the same holds for psychotherapists (who usually started
out as students of psychology with personal problems, of which I have
seen and talked with quite a few).
The whole concept of "psychosomatic illness" is, from the
point of view of a real scientist,
category mistake: There are not a body with a brain AND also a
psyche, soul, mind or what have you: There just are a body with a
brain, and some of the living brain's functioning appear as
experiences to that brain only - and how this happens is, to this day,
mostly a mystery, for which reason all psychiatric dogmatizing about
"body AND mind", "the unconsciousness", "complexes, inhibitions,
neuroses" and what have you must be verbal guesses with some slight
foundations at best.
- financial interests of psychiatrists and insurance companies
One of the things professors of medicine including psychiatry are
rarely willing to discuss honestly and with full disclosure of their
personal interests are their ties to pharmaceutical or insurance
companies, simply because (i) these ties may be financially very
profitable (ii) these ties may make them appear biased in some of
their public stances and (iii) it is not a rare event that some
illegal hanky panky has been going on between professors or doctors of
medicine and pharmaceutical or insurance companies.
2. The text to be reviewed and the review.
Apart from this and the next paragraph, the format of this section
is that I quote the text of Clinical Medicine (as
I found it on the internet), and I give my comments on the text by
indenting them and make the text I quote blue. What I quote has been
copied by somebody else, and I follow that in the order I have found
it (except for the tables below) also without any excisions, but with
correction of a few obvious typing mistakes.
The index entry for ME in Clinical Medicine directs the
reader to the entry for CFS. There is a very small entry in the
infectious diseases seciton under the heading Postviral/Chronic
Fatigue Syndrome, which states "Studies have
suggested that two-thirds of patients with a symptom duration of more
than 6 months have an underlying psychiatric disorder".
This is a very dishonest entry in view of many studies which have
not merely "suggested" but PROVED that many patients with the
diagnosis of ME that was reached by exclusion DO have physical
disorders, and in view of
professor Malcolm Hooper's 2003 thorough refutation of the
Wessel-White-Sharp-Calder school of - what I do like to call -
sado-psychiatry, since I have been told now for 32 years,
directly or by implication, that I am a malingerer or deluded,
whilst I am a psychologist and a philosopher of science - that shows
their "studies" and "suggestions" are simply pseudo-science.
We all have illness behaviour when we choose
what to do about a symptom. Going to see a doctor is generally more
likely with more severe and more numerous symptoms and greater
distress. It is also more likely in introspective individuals who
focus on their health.
This is manipulative prose, that is mostly innuendo and
suggestion. First "We all" is a rhetorical move, not a scientific
fact. Second, "illness behaviour" is pseudoterminology, that
suggests there is some scientific concept of "illness behaviour",
which there isn't. The second sentence is a waste of space,
logically speaking, but leads up to the third that aims to suggest
that especially "introspective individuals" - suggesting: neurotics
- complain about the symptoms of ME, which is completely unfounded
Abnormal illness behaviour occurs when there
is a discrepancy between the objective somatic pathology present and
the patient's response to it, in spite of adequate medical
investigation and explanation.
Here the pseudoterminology introduced in the previous paragraph
gets used, as if there must be some scientific notion of "Abnormal
illness behaviour". There is not: It is insinuation that
patients who complain about the symptoms of ME are "abnormal" (a
term which is used to suggest "deviant", "disturbed", "deluded").
Also, this paragraph suggests - very dishonestly - that medical
science is omniscient: That is, that if present medical
science or a medical scientist (real or so called) does not know of
a somatic explanation, it "therefore" can have no somatic
That's utter nonsense - what it implies is that you must
be deluded and must have a psychiatric condition if medical science
cannot yet provide a good scientific explanation for one's
complaints. Also, this is precisely the way of - now defunct
- Soviet psychiatry: Dissidents are insane because "there is a
discrepancy between the objective" facts of socialist excellencies
at "present and the patient's response to it, in spite of adequate
medical investigation and explanation" of Marx's scientific
But applied to ME this is indeed what the ME-sadism school
of psychiatry teaches and wants, and indeed it would be most
convenient for psychiatric incomes, as it would be most welcome to
insurance companies not to have to do anything for patients with ME
except have them get cured from their delusions by a psychiatric
nurse, for that is MUCH cheaper than doing real medical research
into the possible somatic causes of their complaints, as it is also
MUCH cheaper NOT to have to provide them with the things ill people
do need, and have a legal and human right to.
FUNCTIONAL OR PSYCHOSOMATIC DISORDERS:
MEDICALLY UNEXPLAINED SYMPTOMS
The title is literal doubletalk: Whereas there ARE many
"MEDICALLY UNEXPLAINED SYMPTOMS" to claim that such symptoms are
"FUNCTIONAL OR PSYCHOSOMATIC DISORDERS" is a doubletalking lie that
only serves the interests of psychiatrists and psychotherapists in
paid work, and the interests of insurance-companies in having to
treat ill people as if they are ill in all those cases
- and there are many - where there are "MEDICALLY UNEXPLAINED
One has NO right to "explain" what indeed is medically
unexplained as if it is "functional" or "psychosomatic" - or if one
has that right, e.g. as a psychiatrist or psychotherapist (out for
income or money from insurance companies) others have the right to
conclude that a perfectly valid scientific explanation for this
stance of psychiatrists and psychotherapists is that in fact they
are - unconsciously, of course - sadists out to get patients or
money from insurance companies.
And indeed that is my hypothesis, for it it were otherwise these
psycho-sadists would produce better science and better prose, and
would at least not lie about the facts established about ME by real
scientists (which the psycho-sadists lie about by systematically
"forgetting to mention" these, whereas this is their scientific and
`Functional' disorders are illnesses in which
there is no obvious pathology or anatomical change in an organ (thus
in contrast to `organic and there is a presumed dysfunction in an
organ or system).
As I indicated "`Functional' disorders" is an intentional
misnomer for "medically unexplained diseases and symptoms". To claim
or suggest that what medical science has not yet explained properly
in somatic, organic, biochemical terms is or could be "`Functional'
disorders" is pseudo-science and word magic.
Also, from a really scientific point view - that is: one which
does accord with the perspective of the real sciences physics and
(bio-)chemistry, but not (necessarily) with the beliefs about
science psychiatrists and psychotherapists have, who generally lack
the mathematical talents to do or understand real science - (1) ALL
illnesses are due to some "dysfunction in an organ or system",
whether or not such a dysfunction has been found yet and (2) there
is NO "mind" or "psyche" or "soul" IN ADDITION to a (possibly
malfunctioning) brain. You may believe you have a soul, but that is
not a scientific belief, but a religious one. In real
science there just is the body, including the brain and its
functioning - and the present day real knowledge about the human
body is related to the body in roughly the manner medieval
cartography is related to the real world: Accurate and helpful in
some places, but full of unknowns.
The word psycho-somatic has had several
meanings, including psychogenic, `all in the mind'; imaginary and
The word "psycho-somatic" is pseudoscience: It is based -
if not used satirically - on the presumption that there is, next to
the brain and the body, a psyche or soul. From a scientific point
of view it is demonology.
The modern meaning is that psychosomatic
disorders are syndromes of unknown aetiology in which both physical
and psychological factors are likely to be causative.
No, in a textbook of clinical medicine that is a lie: For
real scientists there are not "both physical and
psychological factors" - there are ONLY physical factors... plus
a lot of real ignorance about very many aspects of the body's and
the brain's functioning, coupled to a lot of pseudoscience,
psychobabble, and nonsensical terminology by all manner of would be
healers, from astrologists to psychiatrists.
The psychiatric classification of these
disorders would be somatoform disorders, but they do not fit easily
within either medical or psychiatric classification systems, since
they occupy the hinterland between them.
Again, "somatoform disorders" comes from the same
psychiatric pseudo-scientific stables as "psychosomatic", and is
pseudoscientific terminology. The valid terminology here is
"medically unexplained, at present".
Next, if it is true that these terminological nephews and nieces
of "demon-possessed" "do not fit easily within either medical
or psychiatric classification systems", one is once more reading
pseudoscience. And indeed, what the professors of psychiatry who
apparently wrote it probably do have in mind is that they would like
to see that ALL or MOST diseases get reclassified as having BOTH a
somatic and a psychological component, which enables their breed of
pseudoscientists to cash in on any disease, by claims of
their ability to cure - what they probably will style - "the
inappropriate illneess behaviour" of patients, namely by massive
doses of Cognitive Behavorial Therapy, well-paid of course, and
preferably without any control.
Also, although the writers of this bad prose pretend to a
knowledge of German, the "hinterland" does not lie "between"
but "behind" ("hinter") something - so this is yet another abuse of
Medically unexplained symptoms and syndromes
are very common in both primary care and the general hospital (over
half the outpatients in gastroenterology and neurology clinics have
Indeed - which would suggest, at least to people intelligent
enough to study physics rather than psychiatry or psychology - that
there is very much that present day medical science can not yet
rationally explain. And this is indeed the case.
But the authors are trickcyclists, and they manage to insinuate
once again that "Medically unexplained
symptoms" must somehow be "syndromes".
(Presumably, their reasoning here is the same, though statistically
and scientifically speaking much less well based than my own
thinking about the many sick syndromes I could name that wrecked
havoc in the minds of psychiatrists, that indeed all belong to
precisely that one group of - niminal - scientists that have most
madness and most suicides in their ranks.)
Because orthodox medicine has not been
particularly effective in treating or understanding these disorders,
many patients perceive their doctors as unsympathetic and seek out
complementary treatments of uncertain efficacy.
This may well be strengthened, in quite a few cases on record, to
"Because orthodox medicine has been
remarkably ineffective in treating and misunderstanding these
disorders" etc. Now, since it would seem to me that "unorthodox
medicine" - whatever that may be, precisely - has not been
particularly effective either in "treating
or understanding these disorders", it seems quite rational in
principle of patients if they "seek out complementary treatments of
uncertain efficacy", and the more so if what your doctor is telling
you, politely of course, that in fact he has learned from the
Handbook the text I review comes from, that one must be ("probably",
"psycho-scientifically") a nutter if one has a medically unexplained
Examples of functional disorders are shown in
Functional or psychosomatic syndromes (medically unexplained symptoms)
Atypical facial pain
Atypical chest pain
Fibromyalgia (chronic widespread pain)
Other chronic pain syndromes
Chronic or post-viral fatigue syndrome
Multiple chemical sensitivity
Irritable or functional bowel syndrome
Irritable bladder syndrome
This is in various ways grossly misleading or a lie. First, the
title should have been styled differently, e.g. thus:
Medically unexplained symptoms (a..k.a. as
"Functional or psychosomatic syndromes" by pseudoscientists like
Second, many real scientists would disagree about any of
these entries under the heading "Functional or
psychosomatic syndromes", and in fact, in the case of - what
are called here - "Fibromyalgia (chronic
widespread pain)" and "Chronic or
post-viral fatigue syndrome" there is a lot of research by
real scientists (that is, mostly and generally, although there are
exceptions: not psychiatrists and not psychotherapists) that there
are quite a few real pathologies in patients with the symptoms that
belong to these diagnoses, all of which make it very probable that
they have a REAL disease, which indeed is so far "medically
unexplained " - and will remain "medically unexplained " till
eternity if it is up to the pseudoscientists.
Because epidemiological studies suggest that
having one of these syndromes significantly increases the risk of
having another, some doctors believe that these syndromes represent
different manifestations in time of `one functional syndrome', which
is indicative of a somatization process.
This is improperly vague language: Whose "epidemiological
studies"? How many? Presumably, precisely the
psychiatric pseudo-science who wrote the present text. And what does
"suggest" mean here? Anyway - the rest
is indeed just pseudoscientific terminology, innuendo and
Functional disorders also have a significant
association with psychiatric disorders, especially depressive and
panic disorders as well as phobias.
Note what happens if one rewrites this thus: "Medically
unexplained diseases have a significant association with psychiatric
disorders", precisely because psychiatrists are in their
business to make money, although they disdain in their prose to
indicate what they mean by "a significant
association", or indeed what is a "psychiatric
And in this connection: Depression has been for decades a
major source of income for hordes of psychiatric pseudoscientists -
until Prozac and the later medicines appeared on the scene, and a
few months of taking a serotonine-inhibitor cured hundreds of
thousands or millions that had been till then carrying money in vain
to Freudian, Jungian and other psychiatric pseudoscientists. And so
called panic disorders and phobias are not so much "psychiatric
disorders" as simply "medically unexplained", for the most part.
Against this view is the evidence that the
majority of primary care patients with most of these disorders do not
have either a psychiatric disorder or other functional disorders.
This is manipulative language, for it is simply a fact that "the
majority of primary care patients", whatever their complaints "do
not have either a psychiatric disorder or other functional
disorders", especially since "functional disorders" is the modern
equivalent of "possessed by demons".
What there is a LOT of "evidence" for is that psychiatry
and psychotherapy so far, for lack of adequate understanding of how
the brain works, are wholly or for the most part
pseudosciences, even if there
are indeed sincere and honest psychiatrists and psychotherapists
(although these too tend to be very shy about admitting their vast
ignorance of how the brain works).
It also seems that it requires a major stress
or a psychiatric disorder in order for such sufferers to attend their
doctor for help, which might explain why doctors are so impressed with
the associations with stress and psychiatric disorders.
This is mere tittle tattle, that in fact only conveys personal
impressions in vague language.
Doctors have historically tended to diagnose
`stress' or `psychosomatic disorders' in patients with symptoms that
they cannot explain.
No, they have not, or only if you restrict history to no later
than the 1950ies, when the notion that stress might cause disease
was popularized by Selye. And even then: It is quite immoral and
irrational for "doctors" to offer
diagnoses of "symptoms that they cannot
explain": They should honestly say they cannot explain it,
and not reason along the line "If I - evidently great medical
omniscient genius that I am - cannot explain symptoms, THEREFORE
there cannot be an unknown disease that causes it, so THEREFORE it
must be psychosomatic".
History is full of such disorders being
reclassified as research clarifies the pathology. A recent example is
writer's cramp (p. 1233) which most neurologists now agree is a
dystonia rather than a neurosis.
This seems to me to be malicious lying or misrepresentation: What
"History is full of" is the finding of
real somatic causes (as in: stomach ulcers, schizophrenia,
depression, autism, homosexuality) for very much that up to then
was considered a "psychiatric disorder"
by the psychiatric pseudoscientists (who must have received
billions for pretending to be able to treat what I just listed)
if not a case of demonic possession.
And the example given - writer's cramp
- is probably willfully sarcastic.
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)
This is a - n intentional - psychiatric misnomer of a serious
organic disease that should be called ME, until the real cause has
There has probably been more controversy over
the existence and aetiology of CFS than any other functional syndrome
in recent years.
An important part of the reason for this is that there have been
a number of psychiatrists and psychotherapists, also all without the
requisite knowledge of real science, have been insisting for
decades, against the rulings of the WHO that insists since 1969 that
ME IS an organic disease of unknown aetiology and since 1992 that it
is NOT a psychiatric disorder, that ME "is" a psychiatric disorder,
in spite of much and variegated excellent evidence by many real
scientific researchers of many organic pathologies in many patients
with the symptoms that go with the name ME.
Rather than admitting their own ignorance the pseudos of
psychiatry kept insisting that ME "is
psychosomatic" ("somatoform", "psychogenic"),
although they have NO independent evidence for this. And rather
than furthering objective scientific research by real scientists,
the pseudos of psychiatry - who don't do real science, and therefore
have much more time than real scientists - have overtaken scientific
and political committees that oversee the spending on medical
research, and have blocked the funding of research by real
scientists into the cause or causes of ME. They did this by the sort
of prose and stances that I am reviewing, that is by insinuation,
double talk, defamation, slander, and falsehoods about the evidence
real scientists HAVE found relating to ME.
This is reflected in its uncertain
classification as neurasthenia in the psychiatric classification and
myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) under neurological disorders.
Well.. the "psychiatric classification"
like the concept and term "neurasthenia"
are simply pseudoscience. Again, the reader must keep in mind
that, until the Wessely-White-Sharp-Clarenden-Reeves school of
pseudos started their campaign (whether to further the incomes of
psychiatrists, or whether paid by insurance-companies who don't want
to support patients with yet another real disease, or whether moved
by their own sadistic malice), the medical majority was on the side
of the WHO, according to which the disease is a real and serious
neurological disorder, with many known signs and symptoms of real
pathology in its patients.
There is good evidence for this syndrome,
although the diagnosis is made clinically and by exclusion of other
This is again a fine example of the technique of disinformation
by the writer of this prose. First, the term "syndrome"
is often used in medical science where there is only a set of
interrelated symptoms (that collectively are the syndrome) and no
medical explanation as yet, for which reason to speak of "good
evidence for this syndrome" is a case of abuse of language,
if not outright stupid. Second, the "good
evidence" that ME exists is not produced "clinically",
but stems from research laboraties and real scientists, who have
found rather a lot of positive evidence that ME is a real and
serious organic disease. Third, the diagnosis is NOT made "by
exclusion of other fatiguing disorders", but much more simply
and relevantly "by exclusion of other disorders", for one may have
symptoms that go with ME (and not just "fatigue")
and yet may have another organic disease.
Its prevalence is 0.5% in the UK, although
abnormal fatigue as a symptom occurs in 10-20%.
This is doubtful, as long as there is no good causal explanation
of ME. Also, it is not said what the "10-20%"
are percentages of, but if this is taken as suggested, namely in all
UK patients with any kind of disease, it is clear that "abnormal
fatigue" is NOT a symptom that is very useful to diagnose
ME. And indeed, the best two symptoms to diagnose ME seem to be
(1) that good standard medical checkups have verified that the
complaints of the patient are not caused by any known disease
and (2) that the patient has post-extertional malaise, which
means that one does not recuperate at all or very slowly from doing
a little too much, even if this little too much is very little for
What I find pretty sickening, meanwhile, is that the writers of
this this medicalese pseudoscientific prose know these facts
at least as well as I do, but refuse to reveal them in a
Handbook of Clinical Medicine. This is palpably and culpably
dishonest and unscientific, and harms patients and there human and
It occurs most commonly in women between the
ages of 20 and 50 years old.
I think this is the first factually true statement without
manipulation, if indeed it is without this last dishonesty. In any
case, some 20% are men, and the agegroup of 20-50 covers a large
percentage of the population.
The cardinal symptom is chronic fatigue made
worse by minimal exertion.
No. The cardinal symptom is chronic exhaustion that does not
go away with resting, that is with post-exertional malaise.
The fatigue is usually both physical and
mental, with associated poor concentration, impaired registration of
memory, irritability, alteration in sleep pattern (either insomnia or
hypersomnia), and muscular pain.
Let me note as a psychologist that these are NOT the sort
of complaints neurotics or psychotics have or had. And let me note
as a psychologist who has had this disease, or at least its
characteristic and defining symptoms, for over 30 years now, that I
spend mostly in bed, in the dole, without any help, that there are
some 17 million people who are ill with these symptoms, who mostly
developed precisely these symptoms, and no others, without having
any knowledge of ME (by any name, also): Most simply fell ill with
some flu-like disease, often Epstein-Barr, as in my case, and never
The name myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME) is
decreasingly used within medicine because it implies a pathology for
which there is no evidence.
This is a lie. Psychiatrists of the pseudo-scientific schools
like to call it "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome"
because this makes it very much easier to misrepresent
patients with ME as if they are malingerers or at best psychosomatic
wimps, but reputable real scientists do not do such things -
and also know that the name ME is based on some evidence, and
such evidence as there is for a neurological disease of the brain
(which is what the name) has not been refuted or undermined.
Functional disorders often have aetiological factors in common with
each other (see Table 22.5), as well as more specific aetiologies.
If "Functional disorders"
are mostly a dishonest attempt by pseudoscientists to misrepresent
real diseases that sofar are not medically explained, it is
clear that "aetiological factors" and "specific
aetiologies" are likely to come from unscientific
attributions, word magic, insinuations etc.
For instance, CFS can be triggered by certain
infections, such as infectious mononucleosis and viral hepatitis.
About 10% of patients with infectious mononucleosis have CFS 6 months
after the infectious onset, yet there is no evidence of persistent
infection in these patients.
Since when are psychiatric disorders "triggered
by certain infections"? Since when is "no
evidence of persistent infection in these patients" - which
besides is a conscious lie by the writer: There is evidence
of "persistent infection", if
the patients are properly investigated by real scientists -
evidence for a persistent psychiatric disorder?
Those fatigue states which clearly do follow
on a viral infection can be classified as post-viral fatigue
Surely they "can be" thus "classified".
But that is not the question: They also can be classified as being
possessed by demons, or whatever else you please, including "somatoform
disorder". In any case, here we see another case of word
magic: Since indeed it is true that viral infections are normally
accompanied by feelings of being tired, the psychiatric pseudos
conclude that "therefore" these "can
be classified as post-viral fatigue syndromes".
Note the subtle insinuation of "syndromes"
here - and indeed, the same trickery can be done with any disease,
and if "fatigue states" are the symptom
used, any disease can be "shown" in
this way to lead to all manner of "post-viral
fatigue syndromes" then one can be pretty sure all manner of
psycho-therapeutical witch-doctors will want to give their
insurance-paid therapies against it.
Other aetiological factors include physical
inactivity and sleep difficulties.
This is a psychitaric way of putting the cart in front of the
horse while pretending to be rational: If one is ill, on generally
also suffers from "physical inactivity",
and if one's illness includes "sleep
difficulties" one will find it more difficult to get rid of
feeling tired. But these are then not "aetiological
factors", as the pseudo scientist who wrote this suggests,
but simply consequences of being ill.
And indeed the game of the pseudo scientist who wrote this, and
his co-workers, is to insist that the consequences of being
ill are to be redefined, restyled, reclassified, and
renamed as "symptoms of somatization
disorder", because these patients then can be given hefty
doses of Cognitive Behaviour Therapy, which brings bliss to the face
of a therapist of it, when paid.
Immune and endocrine abnormalities noted in
CFS may be secondary to the inactivity or sleep disturbance commonly
seen in patients.
This is again disingenuous psychiatric sadism: What the the
pseudo scientist who wrote this seeks to insinuate, by such clever
allpurpose words as "may" is that
somebody in which a real scientist has shown "immune
and endocrine abnormalities", as has happened many times,
which does explain why the patient feels miserable, is inactive and
has sleep disturbances, in fact ("may")
cause these "abnormalities" himself or
herself, namely by .... unsavoury beliefs that the disease is
physical, and by inactivity and sleep disturbance.
What the pseudos "forget to mention", as they always "forget to
mention" any scientific finding that contradicts their nonsense, is
that nobody has ever shown that one - in real fact, and not
just in psychiatric insinuation - that "inactivity
and sleep disturbance" in healthy persons can cause the
immune and endocrine abnormalities that have been found in persons
with the symptoms of ME, by real scientists.
Mood disorders are present in a large
minority of patients, and can cause problems in diagnosis because of
the large overlap in symptoms.
Actually, this is subtly falsified in two ways: First, mood
disorders are present in any group of patients who have a
disease for years on end, and who see their chances on a decent and
normal human life and career disappear in pain, while being steadily
defamed and denigrated by the psychiatric pseudos. Second, the
incidence of mood disorders amongst people with ME, seems to be
remarkably small, in the few cases this has been seriously
These mood disorders may be secondary,
independent (co-morbid), or primary with a misdiagnosis of CFS. The
role of stress is uncertain, with some indication that the influence
of stress is mediated through consequent psychiatric disorders
exacerbating fatigue, rather than any direct effect.
This is mostly twaddle without cognitive value ("may
be", "is uncertain1").
The general principles of the management of functional disorders are
given in Box 22.7.
This is witchdoctor-medicine if there are no "functional
disorders" other than as "medically
unexplained diseases", as is the case. And to suggest that
one KNOWS the proper "Management" of "medically
unexplained diseases" seems criminal incompetence and
quackery to me. I'll arrive at Box 22.7 in a moment.
Specific management of CFS should include a
mutually agreed and supervised programme of gradual increasing
What stinks here is first the innocuous sounding "mutually
agreed and supervised": At least in England it turns out that
if you dare not to agree, and indeed try to resist to sign your
rights away, you'll get serious trouble with the supervisor, and may
loose your dole or benefits. In other circumstances, any similar
procedure is called "blackmail". Second, it FORCES people in
a "programme of gradual increasing activity",
which is, it seems to this psychologist of nearly 60, based on
psychiatric needs to hurt or harm, but not on any good science.
Indeed, to my mind it all sounds like applied sadism, and that
especially in view of the standing ruling of the WHO that ME is (i)
a neurological disease and (ii) is NOT a psychiatric condition.
Hence, if some psychiatrists can effectively force you to
exert yourself in a disease in which it is known since 40
years at least that precisely that will exacerbate your
symptoms, you have almost as clear a case of abuse of power, medical
sadism, and attempts to harm and hurt ill people as one could think
of, outside the Lubjanka and Pol Pot's prisons.
Finally, it has meanwhile been shown, also in the medical
literature, that the programs "of gradual
increasing activity" do no good and considerable harm. I
would advice everyone who is forced to this by threats that one else
looses one's dole or benefits, that one records all names,
addresses, personal details and whatever else may help to prosecute
these people who do this to one for damages, medical malpractice,
incompetence, unethical behavior and intentional malice.
However, few patients regard themselves as
cured after treatment.
This is again a misrepresentation: Very few "regard
themselves as cured after treatment", and indeed the few who
did say so may have been too frightened and too much pained to say
otherwise, just to escape being physically maltreated. Also, few
have reported any improvements in their condition, and to the few
who did the foregoing applies. Finally, many have reported a
worsening of their symptoms and an increase in pain.
It is sometimes difficult to persuade a
patient to accept what are inappropriately perceived as psychological
therapies' for such a physically manifested condition.
This is sadistic doubletalk of frightening dimensions, but is
cleverly done: These therapies of enforced exercise are not
physical, and they are sadistic
when enforced upon people who are ill. And the conditions these
patients suffer from are "physically
manifested" because they are physical.
Antidepressants do not work in the
absence of a mood disorder or insomnia.
As every beginning student of medicine should know. So what is
the purpose of saying it here is unclear.
Now to Box 22.7:
Box 22.7 Management of functional disorders
Again "functional disorders" = "medically
as yet unexplained illnesses".
The first principles is the identification
and treatment of maintaining factors (e.g. dysfunctional beliefs and
behaviours mood and sleep disorders)
This is as Torquemada would argue: Since you have the wrong
dysfunctional beliefs, you will get more treatment/torture - and if
you dare to protest, or indeed as much as say that you are
ill, this is taken as a sign that you still indulge in "dysfunctional
Explanation of ill-health, including diagnosis and causes
I am a psychologist and a philosopher. I have this disease for
32 years. These are not "Explanations":
these are malacious lies, that only serve the pleasures of
medical sadists or the incomes of those who are so indifferent to
other people's suffering that they wish to force ill people to do
physical exercises, if they are not gross and culpable incompetence.
The "diagnosis and causes" I have
read in this Handbook of Cilinical Medicine are scientifically
incompetent, morally sickening, and legally most dubious (and should
be completely forbidden).
Education about management (including
self-help leaflets) .
As above - with the addition that all psychiatric cant and
sadism also pays the canters and sadists very well
Stopping drugs (e. g. caffeine causing
insomnia, analgesics causing dependence)
This again is medical sadism: If you have very little energy,
caffeine gives at least a little more.
No doubt I drink too much coffee, but this is because I get no help
whatsoever, so I am forced to try to clean my house and do the
shopping as well as I can. As to analgesics:
It is sick and a clear symptom of a sadistically diseased brain to
deny a person who is in pain to take a painkiller, on the spurious
argument that this may be "causing dependence".
This is another piece of Orwellian double talk: Terminology that
far from subtly suggests one is a criminal. Similarly, in
Holland I have learned over the last six years that I am supposedly
"socially unintegrated" because I am ill, for which reason I should
take part in forced "courses of social integration" that will cost
the taxpayer 5000 tot 10.000 euro in money - just for me alone - to
the phoneys and loonies that are supposed to "socially integrate" me
- and that in a society in which I have been discriminated for 32
years, because I have "an unexplained disease",
whereas all manner of junks, even those who do not have the Dutch
but the German or Belgian nationality, could all these years get all
manner of very costly help for years on end, simply because in their
blood there is evidence that they shoot heroin, and in my blood
Cognitive behaviour therapy (to challenge
unhelpful beliefs and change coping strategies)
Cognitive behaviour therapy is
word magic, pretentuous nonsense and fraudulent pseudo science.
NO ONE knows how the brain generates experience, and ALL who claim
to understand the human mind have little more to offer than a web of
words and guesses.
The term "unhelpful beliefs" should
be read as "politically/psychiatrically
incorrect beliefs": They are simply such as deny that the
psychiatrist or his nurses that are maltreating and denigrating one
are competent or moral. "Coping strategies"
again is psychobabble for having one's habits upset on purpose by
some nurse of doubtful motivation, small brain, and conformist
inclination, who is simply following orders.
Supervised and graded exercise therapy for
approximately 3 months (to reduce inactivity and improve fitness)
This is sick sadism when imposed on anyone who has good reason
and good evidence to believe he or she is ill, as almost anyone with
ME has, for most persons with ME were healthy and productive
socially well-adjusted persons until they fell ill, and most persons
with ME have since they fell ill suffered huge financial
losses ("opportunity costs"), and have had no chances
whatsoever to lead anything resembling a normal life.
Specific antidepressants for mood disorders,analgesia and sleep
Symptomatic medicines (e.g. appropriate analgesia, taken only when
Apparently, when one is a psycho-sadist, one can have everything
both ways, and indeed that is a technique the leading psycho-sadists
knowingly indulge in. Anyway, the rub is of course in "appropriate
analgesia, taken only when necessary": WHO is going to
decide what is "approprate" and when it
is "necessary"? A psychotherapist who became psychotherapist because
he had sadistic parents, an unhappy youth, and many personal ills to
avenge on ill people who cannot defend themselves? Or the only
person in the universe who can really feel his or her pains,
namely the patient?
This is poor without treatment, with less than 10% of hospital
attenders recovered after 1 year. Outcome is worse with increasing
age, co-morbid mood disorder, and the conviction that the illness is
More malicious nonsense: The prognosis of people with ME is also
poor with treatment, and the treatment outlined here may be
life-threatening to some. That mood disorder is "co-morbid"
(and e.g. not a direct consequence of not being helped at all while
being subjected to the kind of pseudo scientific evil utter nonsene
I am reviewing) is an unjustified assumption. Finally, "the
conviction that the illness is entirely physical" IS the
conviction (1) of virtually all patients (who are free enough to
dare speak their minds) and (2) of the vast majority of medical
doctors who are not psychiatrists.
Obviously there ARE diseases medical science as is cannot
explain; obviously people with ME may, in vast majority, have such a
disease; obviously there IS a lot of real scientific evidence that
many people with ME DO have many pathologies healthy people do NOT
have; and indeed it is also obvious that some people who believe
they have ME have something else; obviously there also will be a few
who are mad who claim they have ME (in a very small minority); and
obviously, if one has ME and depends on the heaven that is called
English dole, one either is really ill or else a masochist.
(And for psychobabblers I add that with so many people with the
symptoms of ME the chances are that 99.99% of those in the dole with
ME are really ill.)
Finally, I turn to another table of psychobabble:
Table 22.5 Aetiological factors commonly seen
in functional disorders
I note again that "functional disorders"
is psycho-sado-speech for "medically
unexplained diseases" (as "disorder"
is again a clever bit of Orwellian terminology, possibly suggested
by a lawyer), while "Aetiological factors"
are NOT "commonly seen in functional disorders",
for there are no such things in "medically
Perfectionist obsessional and introspective personality
Seems to me nonsense, and without any good statistical
foundation. (The term "good" is inserted because the psychobabblers
these day have become quite handy - since the computer can do the
statistics they don't really understand anyway - in dressing up
their nonsense as if it has some "evidence
based" grounds, while these "evidence
based" nearly always happen to be the pseudoscience of their
Also, note that this is yet another psychiatric way of
denigrating persons who do think about the nonsense psychiatric
babblers spout about ME: "O, you must be an
introspective obsessive compulsive!".
Childhood traumas (physical and sexual abuse)
Personally, my guess is that the psycho-sadists have introduced
this to guarantee easier access for themselves to the media. As far
as I know there is no good statistical evidence for this
Similar illnesses in first-degree relatives
This is true and false at the same time. It is true, because ME -
especially if it starts with a viral infection - has been shown to
occur in patches. And my former wife and I both fell ill with
Epstein-Barr in Januaru 1979, and never got over it. It is false,
because the trickcyclists include it in a table of "Aetiological
factors commonly seen in functional disorders".
Does the modern education British doctors these days receive make
it necessary to give elementary dictionary-definitions in a Handbook
of Clinical Medicine? Anyway... there is a none too subtle
difference: And "precipitating"
involves a rapid descend, fall, or decline; while "triggering"
at least suggests causation. In any case:
Indeed, and it seems the majority of persons with ME started
their disease with some sort of infection (which indeed also may be
the case in those where this seemed otherwise). In any case:
Since when is a psychiatric disorder caused by an infection? Since
this helped psychiatrists and psychotherapists find patients!
Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS)
This is just nonsense - the concept of "Chronic
fatigue syndrome" is nonsense (psychobabble, pseudoscience),
and the inclusion of it in a table of "Aetiological
factors commonly seen in functional disorders" is a
disingenuous lie, without any good statistical support.
irritable bowel syndrome (IBS)
Psychologically traumatic events (especially
Curious and curiouser... but psychobabblers out for patients are
capable of many misrepresentations.
Physical Injuries ('fibromyalgia and other
chronic pain syndromes)
See under "Psychologically traumatic events
(especially accidents)" and "Chronic
fatigue syndrome (CFS)".
Also, it must be either a major new finding or a major new lie that
"especially accidents" and "Physical
Injuries" are "Aetiological factors
commonly seen in functional disorders". When I studied
psychology, I wasn't taught this. And indeed it seems bilge to me.
Life events that precipitate changed
behaviours (e.g. going off sick)
In other words: According to this Handbook anything whatsoever
can be among "Aetiological factors commonly
seen in functional disorders". But I am sure insurance
companies love this nonsense: If you are "going
off sick", the psychobabblers will impute a "functional
disorder" to you, so that they can conclude that what keeps
you from working is merely your "dysfunctional
beliefs", for which - OF COURSE! - the insurance company does
not need to pay. And while treating you as a fraud and malingerer
and while stealing your human rights for help with a disease, they
have o so cleverly avoided telling you you are a fraud and
malingerer: You have "dysfunctional beliefs"
and a "functional disorder". And as far
as the insurance company and their psychobabblers are concerned, you
might just as well or better be dead.
Incidents where the patient believes others
First, this is somewhat subtle psychobabble for "paranoia", I
fear. Second, it allows the psycho-sadist who deals with you to play
games along the line that you with your "dysfunctional
beliefs" refuse to take responsibility for your life.
Therefore, you are to blame. (And don't you dare to say "No":
That's more sick dysfunctional belief from a worthless wimp like
you!) Therefore "society" a.k.a. the insurance company (the
psycho-sadist has been working for since decades) will not pay your
"And so it goes...".
Perpetuating ( maintaining)
Again, as under "Precipitating (triggering)",
these are not synonyms - and I suppose, like very much in the
prose I am reviewing, is intentional ambiguity to perpetuate,
maintain, precipitate and trigger confusion and unclarity, since
these are the forces that help the pseudo-scientists.
Inactivity with consequent physiological
adaptation (CFS and 'fibromyalgia').
Again the victim is blamed: If you are ill you are
inactive, and to claim you are or remain ill because you are
inactive is to twist things around without evidence, except of
incompetence or sadism in the writers.
Avoidant behaviours — multiple chemical
sensitivities (MCS) CFS
I don't know much by MCS, but fail to see why this may not play a
real role in quite a few real diseases, whether to to
perpetuate, maintain, precipitate or trigger
it, if the vast majority of those in power believe the earth is
warmed up by human activities. For it certainly is true that over
the past 50 years enormous amounts of chemicals of very many kinds
have become part of the biosphere, that have never been there
As to "Avoidant behaviours": That is
of course in the eye of the beholder i.e. up to psycho-sadist who
mistreats you: However you behave that does not fit his
dysfunctional beliefs, he may style it
Maladaptive illness beliefs (that maintain
This again is up to the psycho-sadists' discretion - and whatever
you believe about your illness he does not believe ipso facto "must"
Whether this entry is correct I don't know (as I am copying of a
copy) but again it seems that the diagnosis of CFS can be "Perpetuating
( maintaining)" the having of CFS.
Excessive dietary restrictions (`food
This is a tricky formulation: "Excessive"
is always wrong, and while `food allergies'
stands between quotation marks, no doubt to suggest that it is all a
"dysfunctional belief", in fact there
are food allergies. However, I do not know of any good scientific
investigation into their role in ME.
This is unclear, since "Stimulant drugs"
is unclear. Are we speaking of caffeine, benzedrine, cocaine? I
doubt more than a very small percentage of persons with ME will take
anything stronger than caffeine, for fear of the consequences
(namely: if you exert yourself, e.g. by using amphetamines, it is
very likely you will be struck by heavy post-exertional
malaise). It would be interesting to see good scientific research on
the effect of known stimulants of people with ME, if only because
all would be helped much by a relatively innocuous stimulant, at
times such a thing may come in handy.
Here we have one of the rare moments the writers write the truth
without admixture of lies, insinuations, doubletalk, innuendo, or
suggestion - except that they have suggested several times that
people with ME should be deprived of analgesics and of sleeping
As under Sleep disturbance
I must take it that "Somatization disorder"
is a "Perpetuating ( maintaining) factor"
in ... "Somatization disorder", so
presumably what the psychobabbler who wrote this must have meant is
that one "Somatization disorder" leads
to another. Well, nonsense and absurdities often lead to more
nonsense and absurdities.
Unresolved anger or guilt
Three of the very nice things about psychiatry, that undoubtedly
attracts many a (n unconscious) sadist to it is that a psychiatrist
has very much power over his patients and that he can always accuse
them of believing or desiring anything whatsoever, if not
consciously than unconsciously. O, and the third nice thing about
psychiatry, for psychiatrists, is that it is NOT a REAL science at
all: Nobody knows how the brain manufactures experience, so
psychiatrists cannot be refuted, and claim and pretend what they
And the pseudo-science of psychiatry is divided into many
mutually contradicting schools of thought, in which there even may
be found a few decent, sincere, rational psychiatrists (usually with
very few illusions about their fellow psychiatrists). Here I merely
suggest that the real sciences have three things that the modern
pseudo-sciences lack, with a few individual exceptions: Real
sciences are not divided in many competing schools - there may be
differences, but not about the fundaments, as in psychiatry,
psychology and sociology; real sciences lead to a real technology
that works completely regardless from your beliefs - pseudo-sciences
like most schools of psychiatry and religion only "work" for the
faithful; and real sciences are done by real scientists of great or
considerable intelligence - in comparison with which psychiatrists,
psychologists and sociologists almost invariably look like poor
fools. (See the writings of Richard Feynman, or the writings of the
philosopher of science Grunbaum on psychiatry, or the whole debate
of some 25 years ago on the many frauds of Freud.)
This is another of the favourite psychiatric/psychotherapeutic
games: You must be compensating! And don't you dare discuss what the
psychobabbler is compensating, or he'll tell you you suffer from "dysfunctional
The present text is a first effort, and may take some reviewing, for
which I don't have the fitness just now.
As I have indicated,
my source for the blue text is under the last link. Also, part of
my background is the following, copied from three days ago, and all
well worth reading by anybody interested in ME, psychology,
psychiatry, philosophy of science, the morals of and motives of
psychiatrists, or rational thinking:
1. Ten reasons why ME is a real disease by a professor
of medicine of Harvard.
2. Long essay by a professor emeritus of medical chemistry about
maltreatment of ME.
3. Explanation of what's happening around ME by an investigative
4. Report to Canadian Government on ME, by many medical experts.
5. Advice to psychiatrist by a psychiatrist who understands ME is an
6. English mathematical genius on one's responsibilities in the matter
of one's beliefs:
is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything
7. A space- and computer-scientist takes a look at psychology.