CFS hypothesis development news

July 11, 2006

Hi Rich et al,

i think an important question to ask, and nearly impossible to answer

at this point is not if stress is a co-factor in CFS, but is it more

a factor than it is in many other diseases like cancer and heart

disease, MS and even AIDS.

it's hard to think of a major medical condition where stress isn't a

significant factor.

thanks

bill

>

> > Why do you always have to throw in a little jab about stress

> playing

> > a part even though it is only an associative variable that many

of

> us

> > didnt' have?

> > Don't you know what we've been through with this?

>

July 11, 2006

cort

this is a fascinating question, and there is tons of info out there

on it.

it seems like there really is info on both sides of the idea of

stress and how it relates to cancer.

here is one link that i found in just the quickest of searches:

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2003/october8/psychiatric.html

but another interesting facet that connects this to CFS is how they

discuss NK cell activity (which among other things are cancer

fighting cells) and how it is affected by stress.

personally, i think stress is not the primary cause of CFS, but

certainly is a factor.

thanks

bill

-- In , cort johnson <cortttt@...>

wrote:

>

> I read surprisingly enough that several studies

> examining stress in cancer have found that it does not

> appear to be a risk factor for coming down with

> cancer; that is increased levels of stress for a

> particular period of time do not appear to predispose

> one to cancer.

>

> Cort

>

> --- winsomme <winsomme@...> wrote:

>

> > Hi Rich et al,

> >

> > i think an important question to ask, and nearly

> > impossible to answer

> > at this point is not if stress is a co-factor in

> > CFS, but is it more

> > a factor than it is in many other diseases like

> > cancer and heart

> > disease, MS and even AIDS.

> >

> > it's hard to think of a major medical condition

> > where stress isn't a

> > significant factor.

> >

> > thanks

> > bill

> >

> > >

> > > > Why do you always have to throw in a little jab

> > about stress

> > > playing

> > > > a part even though it is only an associative

> > variable that many

> > of

> > > us

> > > > didnt' have?

> > > > Don't you know what we've been through with

> > this?

> > >

> >

>

> __________________________________________________

>

July 12, 2006

Jill McLaughlin < wrote:

> A good deal of what everyone has been through is to a large degree

due to what continues to ignore and excuse. Perhaps the

real " CFS deniers " are those who fail to recognize the damage that

the name and overly broad, non-specific definition have caused,

which has been proven. Blaming drs and making them the scapegoats

may be emotionally satisfying to some but is not productive.

Misguided and misdirected anger, especially when based on erroneous

and unsupportable personal beliefs, can be dangerous and detract

from productive issues. Drs believe what they read in journals and

media articles about CFS - and " chronic fatigue " and act

accordingly. CFS is heterogeneous by definition and not what anyone

believes it is according to their own personal experience. If

someone has primarily a mold sensitivity and gets well by avoidance

then it would seem that they may not have what everyone else had in

Incline Village, as has stated that none of the original

epidemic population has recovered. How does this equate with playing

this Incline Village prototype for CFS and being in this constant

frenzy about defending the name CFS and trying to prove one's own

version.

It seems disingenuous and rather odd under the circumstances.

Jill

>

Jill.

You have carried on this " frenzy " of attacking me for " defending

CFS " for several years now.

The events regarding the origin of CFS have been well documented and

are easily verifiable. Your assertions of " disingenuous " are

themselves demonstrable to be disingenuous.

The illness happened exactly as we described and was named CFS.

No matter what damage has been done by any of the names involved,

or how much you dislike what has already happened - you cannot

change events long past or discount them, claiming that they should

not have happened.

It doesn't seem to bother you that your constant statements

that " CFS is fatigue " are in total support and agreement with

deniers and denigrators of the illness, and do not serve the purpose

of people who are attempting to have " CFS " recognized to the extent

necessary that this serious and disabling illness can get the

credibility it needs to garner research and a serious medical name.

You are fond of telling me that I am spreading " disengenuous lies "

for " defending CFS " , yet strangely you fail to mention that this

also means that Dr Cheney, , and the authors of the Canadian

Guidelines must also be spreading disingenuous lies - if they they

share my views that CFS happened as we all said. Is CFS meaningful

to you when they say it - but " disingenuous " when I do?

In your desire to undo the damage you blame strictly on the

name " CFS " instead of those who have always fought the illness, no

matter WHAT name it went under, you have become a worse attacker of

CFS than Wessely or even the most stalwart disbelievers.

Your efforts to " advocate " for CFS by attempting to spread the view

that CFS is nothing more than a hodgepodge of meaningless

complaints, that CFSers are to blame for the name because they

didn't beg the CDC hard enough for change it, and that doctors are

correct to ignore immunological abnormalities in their patients and

are perfectly right to believe only believe what they read in media

and medical journals is a tactic that should earn your own reward

and obtain for you just exactly what you deserve - should things

turn out the way you ask. Simply apply that same trust in doctors

and the CDC's handling of ME and see what you get!

You don't even have a clear idea of what you are begging the CDC

for. More funding for CFS? More research? A better name?

No, that can't be it.

Since you espouse the view that " CFS is fatigue " , it is consequent

that you would ask the CDC that CFS be de-funded and that no

recognition be accorded and no research be performed.

Since you have the view that " CFS is not ME " , you cannot ask the

CDC to change the name of CFS to ME.

What name is it that you wish to " change " , if CFS does not represent

any illness?

Have you told everyone who signed that name change petition that

they cannot ask for a name change because in your view. " CFS is not

ME. It has been proven " .

Bottom line is that all you are doing in these groups is saying that

CFS doesn't exist.

Your ridiculous view has no possibility to prevail against the

evidence of immune abnormalities in CFS, yet you seem unable to

reconcile or even recognize the untenable conflictory nature of your

beliefs and assertions.

But in the meantime, I invite you be " productive " and beg,

supplicate, petition and beseech the CDC for that mysterious name

change you refer to, - from what? to what?. And be sure to mention

that " CFS is fatigue " and doesn't represent anything that needs a

better name, while you are at it.

The harder you try to maintain self-contradictory positions - the

more of a statement about your mental processes it makes.

While you're busy doing that, I will continue on with the " false

and disingenuous lies " notion that CFS is what the original

describers: Dr Cheney and Dr said it is, and that

distortions that came later are precisely that:

Distortions!

You cannot change that either, except in the depths of your own

twisted and convoluted mind.

The original intent of the CFS study group was to outline a loose

definition to help doctors identify the concurrent complaints which

constitute a phenemonen which needed further research to delineate.

Instead of using CFS as the tool it was meant to be, YOU denialist

chose to use it against sufferers by claiming that whatever was in

that definition was the sum total of the illness - for your own

twisted, and frankly, psychotic and anti-patient reasons.

You and Wessely have your own " fatigue " and " heterogeneous "

versions which you have picked over and made up to suit yourselves,

long after the fact, but only those who were in the original study

group which was used to define CFS can say that whatever the

illness turns out to be, were present at the true basis and origin

of CFS, no matter how much you happen to dislike the facts.

All you did was hear " CFS " somewhere and create your own conviction

that you know what it is, based on your own deliberately distorted

misinterpretation of nonPWC expressed definitions and later

descriptions that have been filtered through layers of

misunderstanding created by denialists and obfusticators, such as

yourself.

Whatever the motivation was behind creation of the name " CFS " , we

are the ones the term was invented for - and if anyone associates

CFS with " Yuppie Flu " or Incine Village, then they are comparing

against the phenomenon of which I have personal knowledge and

experience.

It is the original CFS that I describe.

And NOT whatever YOU choose to think CFS is.

You cannot alter that, unless you figure out a way to go back in

time and change history.

As for the mycotoxin mediation of symptoms, you will notice that I

don't try to force it down anyones throats.

It has been made clear to me that nobody is interested, so I leave

it up to them whether they wish to pursue the clues I've put out.

When I had no other options and nothing else had helped in any

significant way - I found something that made a difference.

When Dr Cheney asked to volunteer to be a participant the CDC

study group to define CFS - he demanded that I must be in the group

because " You are the purest case of illness and a member of the

original cohort " .

Dr re-affirmed this 1997 during the ampligen protocols and

again when I was in the NIH 1999 " Original CFS cohort study " .

You cannot accuse me of being a mistake without implicitly

contradicting Dr Cheney and Dr s judgment and decision to

include me as a prototypical case of the phenomenon.

I walked out of the ampligen screening protocol and recovered to

the extent I did by doing exactly what I say I did by doing

something that other people have not tried. If you don't like a CFS

original performing a demonstration of some level of recovery by a

proposed concerted strategy while in an NIH study program...

If you are desperately attempting to avoid find something that might

make a difference...

Tough! - For you!

Your actions are rather odd, under the circumstances.

Perhaps study of your brain might yield some answers as to why a

large percentage of the population responds to novel concepts and

unfamiliar phenomenon with automatic disbelief, disdain and denial.

Even if it is not to their benefit to do so.

My agenda was to gain the attention of some serious researcher into

the mycotoxin connection to CFS and I have succeeded - despite the

total unwillingness of CFSers to support me in this venture.

The evidence I have to date is that CFSers decision to belittle my

story and undermine my efforts to draw attention to this abnormality

to the CFS illness model is one that many will regret someday.

Biotoxin mediation is reality.

In the future, your reaction to my experience may well serve as a

cautionary example of how the purest arrogance is to be found in

those who pre-emptively dismiss information which was later found to

be factual, simply because they consider that anyone who challenges

the status quo is presumptuous and " arrogant " for daring to act

beyond the boundaries of their status - regardless of the inherent

truth or falsity of the information involved.

As a Holmes et al participant, it was MY blood, symptoms, immune

abnormalities and illness that directly received the term " CFS " .

Who has more right or better credentials to say they know a thing or

two about CFS in it's original form at the time of its naming than

someone who was there?

If I say that I found something that helped me, and was a factor in

what happened in Incline Village, your eagerness to disregard and

suppress it before you even find out if I'm mistaken or lying makes

your obstinate, intransigent and closed mindset exemplary of those

who fight to destroy sufferers of CFS without examining the facts.

If one looks beyond the words used by denialists to find the

underlying reasons why words just don't work with some people, they

will find a certain type of mentality.

Your mentality.

-

July 12, 2006

Anybody who can write that long a diatribe cannot be real sick.

Guess its just time to put you back on blocked, where you were until I had to

reformat my harddrive. How rude selfish and disrespectful you are to the rest of

us, dumping your load here where it doesn't belong.

Adrienne

Re: CFS hypothesis development news