There are three methods used for classifying diseases.The branch of Medicine which deals with classification of diseases is called Nosology.The first uses symptoms. This was the main method in the 17th,18th and 19th century and the main method used by psychiatrists of today and forms the approach of the DSM. You may remember that this approach was heavily criticized recently as the main reason why there has been virtually no progress in understanding the causes of "psychiatric diseases" and developing any kinds of curative treatments. The second two methods are based on etiology and pathophysiology and are the preferred methods of physicians and scientists in the 21st century.Simply put etiology means cause or causes.The classic example would be HIV and aids. Pathophysiology is a little more difficult to explain but essentially people are classified has having the same disease if they share the same biochemical, immunological or other biological abnormalities in common. The consensus definitions for Chronic Fatigue syndrome are all based on the approach used in the DSM.Unfortunately so are the various Consensus definitions for ME/Cfs or ME. Their use is one of the main reasons why there has been little progress in determining the causes and no progress in finding a treatments. It is also the reason why psychiatrists can produce"evidence" that CFS,ME/cfs and ME are psychiatric conditions and pull the wool over the eyes of physicians,the lay press and the public at large.They just claim that their consensus definition is just as valid as anyone else,s!!! Their spinmeisters do the rest. In my view people and organizations defending Fukuda,CCC, and ICC ME are doing Wesselly,s work for him. Consensus criteria allows him to ride roughshod over patients and their defence by "patient advocates" "charities" and non profits likely has him weeping with Joy and dancing with delight. I found their defense in the recent campaign against the proposed plan by a US govt department to develop another clinical definition astonishing and more than slightly annoying !!! Dont get me wrong.We need another consensus definition like we need another Simon Wesselly but defending the ones in existence is also the road to hell a simple equation 19th Century Nosology+ unscientific research= an eternity in purgatory + a win for Wesselly
Posted on: Sun, 08 Sep 2013 08:02:35 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015