Re: created in a lab? it's 100's of years old.

[Guest guest]

Research has shown that CFS symptoms were described through history. I've

had it since the 1950's, when they knew little of genetics, etc.

[Guest guest]

That's why I call the Incline Village epidemic; " The beginning of

public awareness of CFS " .

I've based some of my concepts of CFS as an illness that has had a

wild increase in prevalence based on the notion that something as

horrific as this couldn't possibly have been ignored.

Even if they had no clue, how could people be so oblivious as to say

that they never heard anybody complain of such a thing if this

existed in any significant numbers in the population?

However I am forced to admit that " friends " , family, physicians and

humans in general have demonstrated that they can watch a million

people go down with this illness and pretend they see nothing.

After witnessing the degree of denial that people have proven they

are capable of, it seems conceivable that this illness could have

destroyed the lives of millions and every single person could have

been told that they are the only one with such unbelievable symptoms.

-

[Guest guest]

>

> Where we start going round in circles again is when you start to

extend

> your experience with a sudden onset cluster to the diagnosis of CFS.

>

> Let me repeat yet again that a word is used how it's used and if

you want

> to know what CFS means TODAY, look at the diagnostic criteria

currently in

> use and the patient population.

>

> Sudden onset in clusters is not part of the diagnostic criteria and

the

> overwhelming majority who carry this label are now, as I say, either

> gradual onset or onset with antecedents.

Rob, it doesn't matter since the cluster incidents supercede the

individual onset cases in terms of specificity. Unless you can

demonstrate that all these " genetic susceptibility canaries " have the

incredible propensity for grouping themselves together, the

statistical improbability of " canary clusters " suggests that the

mechanism for creation of this illness overpowers variabilities of

individual immunity.

The very fact that this illness can sweep through communities in

large clusters in such an unprecedented manner means that even though

canaries may be susceptible, the illness has the capacity to

transcend that factor.

When something breaks the rules or doesn't fit the conceptual model

you have laid out for it, you must question why.

The threory must fit ALL the facts.

-

[Guest guest]

keep talking about " this illness " as though we're all the same, and

> there's no justification for saying that. Please re-read my posts.

I'm

> sorry but I don't know how to explain myself any clearer.

>

> It's as though you have a psychological blockage about letting go

of the

> idea that your illness defines what is now a very large and diverse

> patient population. There are at least the two subgroups that I've

> indicated and most likely other subgroups too.

Rob, you have made yourself very clear.

You think that CFS is a perfectly normal result of people with an

inherent predisposition succumbing to exposures and stressors that

others endure, even though these exposures and stressors have no

history of consistently causing CFS.

You make no attempt to explain why these predisposing factors did not

result in clusters of CFS consistently enough to be associated with

these " stresses " or exposures.

You have a psychological blockage of comprehending that I was used as

a prototypical case of CFS for defining the parameters of the illness

and that therefore CFS of the class that compares itself to the type

that spread through Incline is comparing their condition to me and

should attempt to establish some level or concurrency.

" This Illness " is the one described in Oslers Web and innumerable

other places and is generally recognised as representative of CFS, at

the very least, as a valid subgroup since it was used to develope the

illness model.

Even disregarding my case, you fail to understand that if the

illness has the capacity to overwhelm people in groups, that the idea

of a inherent predisposition can only possibly fit if the that group

met the statistical improbability of consisting entirely

of " canaries " . It is not impossible that this could be the case, but

the unlikely nature of this occurance demands an explanation.

You entirely ignore virtually all the clusters of CFS in which the

cohort predominated of those who had no apparent immunosuppressive

condition. Do you believe that since these clusters do not fit your

model, that they must be another illness, even though they are the

very outbreaks that were used to model the illness?

Your hypothesis can only be supported by discarding every example

that contradicts it even though these are the examples that the

illness was based on.

I ask you to make your illness model fit at least one group of people

that researchers used to define the illness and your answer is that

these disparate illnesses cannot be compared as they consist of

separate etiologies. Since the word " syndrome " meaning " concurrency "

is used to describe the illness, the only thing we have to compare is

similarities. Yet you seem to think that there can be no valid

comparision between subsets. If you don't recognize the comparison

and the concurrency that constitutes the " syndrome " in CFS, then your

basic premise is that there is no syndrome at all and that everybody

is just falling apart as a part of normal life and that the

proximity of those in clusters and the similarity of symptoms is

nothing more than a coincidence.

What I saw was an epidemic and our symptoms were extremely comparable.

Explain how canaries occur in clusters.

Explain why sick people avoided CFS while athletes succumbed.

Explain why CFS is so completely unknown if those inherent

susceptibilities and stressors were preexisting.

Instead of telling me I don't understand, explain the discrepancies.

Make the theory fit the facts.

-

[Guest guest]

Rob, EXCEEDINGLY well stated.

It is truly infuriatiating to someone who has experienced " Ramsay ME "

to have people who are comfortable with fatigue as a description of

their symptoms treat the illness as comparable.

Though I believe you are right about the precursor condition.

It would be consistent with my experience to change the name of the

Incline Village syndrome to ME and call the

precursor " susceptibility " : CFS.

I believe that the subsets will eventually be united by this

precursor condition.

If you remember my description of " The Truckee Crud " which

corresponded to the infection identified by Dr as HHV6a,

there was also a simultaneous manifestation of a " Precursor "

or " Antecedent CFS " state in which people started succumbing

to " stresses " or exposures which had never bothered anybody before.

There was a striking increase in sinus infections, depression and

chemical sensitivities even though these people didn't

develope " Ramsay style ME " .

The reason I fight the " canary concept " so hard is that the

presumption is that these susceptibilities are the result of toxic

overload or lifestyle or perhaps pre-existing genetic susceptibilites

in response to a toxic exposure if they have a sudden onset. But what

I saw is the creation of a manifestation of subtle susceptibilities

in a very pristine setting among people with a strong dedication to a

healthy lifestyle afer a flu like illness passed through. That

suggests to me that the susceptibility/precursor condition still

doesn't meet the model for " toxic overload " while a post infection

syndrome does.

If the susceptibility was an inherited genetic predisposition, the

failure of the syndrome to manifest under conditions of stress and

toxic exposure in a consistent way in the past suggests

that " something changed " .

The spread of complaints under these conditions matches the model of

a contagious organism more than environmental factors - though the

environmental factors play enough of a part to be the symptom

inducers and receive the blame for causation.

Like my story about blaming the car that happened to be on the bridge

when it collapsed. Yes the car was the trigger. No it cannot be the

cause because cars are well known not to be bridge collapsers.

Thanks for your well considered response.

-