Guest guest Posted October 15, 2006 Report Share Posted October 15, 2006 Adrienne > Kurt, I just wonder which kind of " genetic " you are meaning. Jung used it but it was pretty clear that he did not mean a physical transmission of characteristics. He seems to have meant a genetics that was more spiritual, or soulish. Well I can't speak for Jung, but I was referring to 'genetic' in the general sense of how the brain is wired. > I have never heard of any physical correlations of actual genes with types. HAve I missed something? I don't know why anyone would study that, although given what is starting to appear about certain illnesses and personality, perhaps in time someone will find a correlation. Of course the idea that actual specific genes correlate with biological traits is certainly not new. I suppose this comes down to whether or not the parameters measured by the MBTI are due in part, or wholly, to biological traits. I tend to believe they are at least influenced by biology, but perhaps it is a nature-nurture type of interaction that creates the personality. If that is true, then we should see at least SOME correlation, and that is what we have in the survey results. There must be an explanation for the survey results, becasue this does not look random. To have a type (INFJ) present in only 1.5% of the population be present in such large numbers of PWC can not be a coincidence. So then the task is to find an explanation. I do not believe that PWC have inherently unstable personalities that all change to be INFJ when sick. Rather, I think there is something to be learned here about the complex nature of CFS. --Kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Hi, Kurt. Thanks for doing this poll. I agree that the results are dramatic and think your speculation is largely on target. It looks like to me those with the ...NFJ combination of dominant traits, regardless of extraversion or introversion, are distinctly vulnerable to CFS as a type, with all those with the NF combination not too far removed from this predisposition. I happen to disagree with tests that end up showing so many INFJs, regardless of CFS, and think that this group is predominantly ENFJ(ENFJ's have the most introverted feelings among all the extrovert types and the INFJ is among the rarist in typology is my reason for this skepticism). FWIW, Niednagel has found in his own data of several decades of professional study in this field that both the ENFJ and ENFP braintypes are most vulnerable to depression. He says the reason why is these two tend to get depressed when they don't see hope on the horizon, which is apparently not as a much a need for the other types in maintaining their emotional equilibrium. Please let us know here the results you get from doing this poll with the chronic lyme group you have in mind. Those results could be very interesting. " Kurt Rowley " <kurtrowley@...> wrote: Incidentally, I may post a similar poll to a large Lyme group. > Given the simliarities between conditions, I think this could be an > interesting comparison/contrast. > > --Kurt > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Hi, Adrienne. " Adrienne G. " <duckblossm@...> wrote: > > Kurt, I just wonder which kind of " genetic " you are meaning. Jung used it but it was pretty clear that he did not mean a physical transmission of characteristics. He seems to have meant a genetics that was more spiritual, or soulish. > I have never heard of any physical correlations of actual genes with types. HAve I missed something? > Adrienne ***There has been a lot of misunderstanding of what Jung was doing way back in his day. But upon closer examination and with the inclusion of many insights about genetics since his time, it turns out the traits he observed are in fact completely genetic when it comes to those now assessed by Myers-Brigg(MBTI), Braintypes(BTI) or others variants that have Jung's original findings in this field as their origin. ***It's important to remember these are core temperment traits and the typing is not intended to represent the entirety of ones personality or more accurately said, " persona " , which includes temperment but also has almost as equally a lot that is influenced beyond genetic contribution and can change. Check out http://www.braintypes.com as a good place that shows most clearly that this area of human typology is 100% genetically determined. ***It's really a stunner! Who would've thought president W. Bush and former pesident Bill Clinton share the exact same temperment or braintype(ENTJs both), while their personas are clearly different, never mind distinct political idealogies? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 I think he has a way to go before he has proven anything by genetics. Says there are people who don't want him to succeed so he is keeping the actual research secret? Give me a break. I am always ready to be wrong, but sounds hokey to me. Adrienne Is this what you mean by the word you used? (This was Jung's meaning:) 3. persona The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one's public image, as distinguished from the inner self. Re: CFS Personality Type Survey Hi, Adrienne. " Adrienne G. " <duckblossm@...> wrote: > > Kurt, I just wonder which kind of " genetic " you are meaning. Jung used it but it was pretty clear that he did not mean a physical transmission of characteristics. He seems to have meant a genetics that was more spiritual, or soulish. > I have never heard of any physical correlations of actual genes with types. HAve I missed something? > Adrienne ***There has been a lot of misunderstanding of what Jung was doing way back in his day. But upon closer examination and with the inclusion of many insights about genetics since his time, it turns out the traits he observed are in fact completely genetic when it comes to those now assessed by Myers-Brigg(MBTI), Braintypes(BTI) or others variants that have Jung's original findings in this field as their origin. ***It's important to remember these are core temperment traits and the typing is not intended to represent the entirety of ones personality or more accurately said, " persona " , which includes temperment but also has almost as equally a lot that is influenced beyond genetic contribution and can change. Check out http://www.braintypes.com as a good place that shows most clearly that this area of human typology is 100% genetically determined. ***It's really a stunner! Who would've thought president W. Bush and former pesident Bill Clinton share the exact same temperment or braintype(ENTJs both), while their personas are clearly different, never mind distinct political idealogies? This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 > the NF combination not too far removed from this predisposition. I happen to disagree > with tests that end up showing so many INFJs, regardless of CFS, and think that this group > is predominantly ENFJ(ENFJ's have the most introverted feelings among all the extrovert > types and the INFJ is among the rarist in typology is my reason for this skepticism). I also suspect that some of the INFJs here are actually ENFJs. Largely because of the social nature of these online groups. I don't believe that the 'I' type participates on these lists as much, due to the social exposure, although probably many are lurkers. In my own case, I am INFJ, and I was very shy and reluctant to participate in this or any other group, I lurked for a long time on several groups. So if anything, I believe the INFJ is LESS likely to participate in a group like this. What brings us here is a pressing need. But those who are natively ENFJs, I can see that they would be more likely to participate in a list like this, and given the CFS might score as an INFJ. > FWIW, Niednagel has found in his own data of several decades of professional study in this > field that both the ENFJ and ENFP braintypes are most vulnerable to depression. He says > the reason why is these two tend to get depressed when they don't see hope on the > horizon, which is apparently not as a much a need for the other types in maintaining their > emotional equilibrium. Interesting. Not sure I agree with his explanation, people also get depressed when their serotonin becomes depleted. But an interesting correlation. --Kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Interesting to play around with the concept of personality associations. But, in terms of causality, if the illness demonstrably shows the capacity to ignore it completely, it means the illness just plain doesn't care. Examing personality is kind of like interviewing survivors of a sunken ship to see if personality traits correspond to how well someone treads water. It probably does, but that has very little to do with how they wound up in the water. - TESTIMONY BEFORE THE FDA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE The National CFIDS Foundation 103 Aletha Rd, Needham Ma 02492 (781) 449-3535 Fax (781) 449-8606 February 18, 1993 by R. Cheney M.D.,Ph.D Charlotte, NC My name is Dr. Cheney. I am a general internist by training. I was invited by the CFIDS Association, a patient group of some 30,000 members, to present the perspective of a clinician in the trenches treating chronic fatigue syndrome. It has now been over eight years since I first became conscious of this disorder as a distinct clinical entity. I watched in awe as over 200 cases appeared over a span of six months in a small community on the north shore of Lake Tahoe where I practiced in 1984. Since then I have evaluated over 2500 cases of chronic fatigue of which over 2000 cases meet the CDC case definition. I currently direct the Cheney Clinic in Charlotte, NC, (which, with a staff of fifteen, is devoted entirely to the diagnosis and management of CFS). We have carefully evaluated in the three years of our existence over 1200 cases from 45 states and 6 foreign countries or territories. 78% meet the CDC case definition. We have seen the worst and the best of the range of scenarios that can befall a patient with this disorder. At best, it is a prolonged post- viral syndrome with recovery or improvement within one to five years. At worst it is a nightmare of increasing disability with both physical and neurocognitive components. The worst cases have both an MS-like and an AIDS-like clinical appearance. While CFS is not generally fatal, we have lost five patients in the last six months. Two by suicide and three by intercurrent infections. All were in a progressive, debilitated state. The most difficult thing to treat is the severe pain. The most frustrating is the fatigue. The most alarming is the neurologic and neurocognitive elements of this disease. Half have abnormal MRI scans, 80% have abnormal SPECT scans, 95% have abnormal cognitive evoked EEG brain maps. Most have abnormal neurologic examinations. (The most severe cases have neurologic findings which are striking but at the extreme of a continuum of abnormalities which are subtle in most cases.) We have 155 cases with random CD4 counts below 500, 62 cases below 400, 21 below 300 and 3 below 200. An estimated two thirds of these cases will persist below 500 on repeated determinations. Only a few will meet the crurent case definition of ICL. None have shown progressive CD4 depletion as seen in AIDS. (Many with low CD4 levels are clinically quiescent and quite stable.) However, we have had four cases of AIDS defining opportunistic infections including MAI and pneumoncystis pneumonia and two cases of spontaneous esophageal candidiasis. (One of these patients has had repeated bouts of opportunistic infections but only one has CD4 depletion.) 40% have impaired cutaneous skin test responses to multiple antigens. Most have evidence of T-cell activation. 80% have an up-regulated 2-5 A anti-viral pathway on a single determination. From an economic standpoint, this disease is a disaster. 80% of the cases evaluated at my clinic are unable to work or attend school. The average length of illness at the time of presentation is 3.8 years. 90% have become ill since 1980. The yearly case production, if plotted, is exponential. Most are already on or will shortly be on some sort of disability plan, public or private. In a recent survey of 20 consecutive patients at our clinic, the average dollar figure spent on medical care before coming to our clinic was $15,000 with a range of from $2,500 to $50,000. Most patients had seen more than ten physicians. (Very few were happy with their care or treatment at the hands of ordinary physicians, but especially medical specialists. The worst care is rendered by HMO's and national diagnostic clinics. The best care is rendered by caring family physicians.) The most common reasons given to come to our clinic are 1)To obtain a definite diagnosis 2)To seek treatment options and 3)To document disability for subsequent social security disablity applications. We are frequently depositioned for disablity and other types of litigation. (Many cases involve divorce as we witness the disintegration of the family unit. WE have seen litigation against schools to force homebound teaching of impaired children with CFS.) The medical legal aspects of our practice steadily grow as this disease eats at the fabric of our communities. We admit regularly to the hospital. The most common admitting diagnoses are acute and chronic encephalopathy, uncontrolled head pain and debilitating fatigue with inability to care for self. The longest hospitalization is 5 months to date. That patient has encephalopathy, seizures and apraxia and is currently awaiting nursing home placement at the age of 37. Medicare/medicaid has to date paid $150,000 to the hospital for her care which has exceeded $250,000 since August 1992. Another patient, age 28 and also on medicare, spent 8 weeks at Emory University Rehabilitation Hospital. During her stay at Emory, she steadily worsened under standard rehabilitation protocols and was eventually transferred to me for an additional 1 month hospitalization. (She has been confined to a wheelchair for 18 months with severe lower extremity extrapyramidal motor neurnon disease.) Both of these cases are summarized in two case reports for your review. In summary, CFS is an emerging, poorly understood disorder with a distinctive clinical presentation. I am not at all sure that it is as heterogeneous as some would lead you to believe. (I am also not al all sure that much of what I and others have been witnessing since 1980 is necessarily and old disorder. Post-viral syndromes are certainly old and certainly related but most CFS cases are much more distinctive than that. The boundaries of this disorder are certainly vague but htat is true of many otherwise distinctive clinical entities.) This disorder is a socio-economic as well as medical catastrophe that will not end. I believe that government and university clinicians have spent too little time with or thought too narrowly about these patients. This disease is too complex to rely wholly on standard medical orthodoxy to explain it. When in doubt listen to a thousand patients with an open mind. Failing that, then listen to those who have spent countless hours with a thousand patients. Most of us have some wisdom to impart and most of that came from patients. Thank you for listening Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Hi, Adrienne. " Adrienne G. " <duckblossm@...> wrote: > > I think he has a way to go before he has proven anything by genetics. ***I thoroughly disagree. You'd need to look into it more, perhaps reading one of his books on relationships or sports like I've done and you'd see what I'm talking about, it becomes self evident in his writings and how they immediately give you real world access to those what those initialized traits empirically mean when looking at people. Says there are people who don't want him to succeed so he is keeping the actual research secret? Give me a break. I am always ready to be wrong, but sounds hokey to me. ***I've seen postings on the net by a jealous college professor who teaches psychology who was severely knocking what Niednagel describes as braintyping and it was obvious to me this guy had not given him or his observations proper review or respect for some very impressive results they produce. Envy happens to the best of us and I think some may be envious of the big dollars Niednagel gets paid by top athletes for performance coaching and sports organizations for his observations about athletes they're thinking of signing on, they know what he does works better than much of what different consultants bring to the table. ***He's come to be known as " The Brain Doctor " in the sporting realm. > Is this what you mean by the word you used? (This was Jung's meaning:) > 3. persona The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one's public image, as distinguished from the inner self. ***Some what. I really mean the overall common adjectives people might often use in describing you and your qualities as well as your own fair assessment or description of yourself- overall perception rather than tuning into to core temperment as MBTI or BTI does. > Hi, Adrienne. > > > > " Adrienne G. " <duckblossm@> wrote: ***It's important to remember these are core temperment traits and the typing is not > intended to represent the entirety of ones personality or more accurately said, " persona " , > which includes temperment but also has almost as equally a lot that is influenced beyond > genetic contribution and can change. Check out http://www.braintypes.com as a good > place that shows most clearly that this area of human typology is 100% genetically > determined. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 > TESTIMONY BEFORE THE FDA SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COMMITTEE > My name is Dr. Cheney. I am a general internist by training. It has now been over eight years since I first became conscious of this disorder as a distinct clinical entity. I watched in awe as over 200 cases appeared over a span of six months in a small community on the north shore of Lake Tahoe where I practiced in 1984. > The reason I include Dr Cheney's testimony of " watched in awe " is because, just like all other doctors, it was a phenomenon that they often characterized as " never seen anything like it before " . Dr Cheney and Dr were different from other doctors though, because they believed what they saw. But what this means is that if someone asserts that CFS was common and had a high degree of prevalence prior to the 1980's, that they are probably not seeing the same " CFS " as those people who stated that the emergence and nature of this particular illness was completely outside their realm of professional or personal knowledge. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Re: CFS Personality Type Survey Hi, Adrienne. " Adrienne G. " <duckblossm@...> wrote: > > I think he has a way to go before he has proven anything by genetics. ***I thoroughly disagree. You'd need to look into it more, perhaps reading one of his books on relationships or sports like I've done and you'd see what I'm talking about, it becomes self evident in his writings and how they immediately give you real world access to those what those initialized traits empirically mean when looking at people. Says there are people who don't want him to succeed so he is keeping the actual research secret? Give me a break. I am always ready to be wrong, but sounds hokey to me. ***I've seen postings on the net by a jealous college professor who teaches psychology who was severely knocking what Niednagel describes as braintyping and it was obvious to me this guy had not given him or his observations proper review or respect for some very impressive results they produce. Envy happens to the best of us and I think some may be envious of the big dollars Niednagel gets paid by top athletes for performance coaching and sports organizations for his observations about athletes they're thinking of signing on, they know what he does works better than much of what different consultants bring to the table. ***He's come to be known as " The Brain Doctor " in the sporting realm. > Is this what you mean by the word you used? (This was Jung's meaning:) > 3. persona The role that one assumes or displays in public or society; one's public image, as distinguished from the inner self. ***Some what. I really mean the overall common adjectives people might often use in describing you and your qualities as well as your own fair assessment or description of yourself- overall perception rather than tuning into to core temperment as MBTI or BTI does. > Hi, Adrienne. > > > > " Adrienne G. " <duckblossm@> wrote: ***It's important to remember these are core temperment traits and the typing is not > intended to represent the entirety of ones personality or more accurately said, " persona " , > which includes temperment but also has almost as equally a lot that is influenced beyond > genetic contribution and can change. Check out http://www.braintypes.com as a good > place that shows most clearly that this area of human typology is 100% genetically > determined. > > > > > This list is intended for patients to share personal experiences with each other, not to give medical advice. If you are interested in any treatment discussed here, please consult your doctor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Hi, Kurt. " Kurt Rowley " <kurtrowley@...> wrote: > I also suspect that some of the INFJs here are actually ENFJs. > Largely because of the social nature of these online groups. I don't > believe that the 'I' type participates on these lists as much, due to > the social exposure, although probably many are lurkers. ***I think you may be right about this. In my own case, I am INFJ, and I was very shy and reluctant to participate in > this or any other group, I lurked for a long time on several groups. > So if anything, I believe the INFJ is LESS likely to participate in a > group like this. What brings us here is a pressing need. ***This makes a lot of sense to my mind too. And that you come out INFJ seems quite on target now that you mention it(quite the rare bird you guys are and not necessarily chomping at the bit to be noticed given your predisposition, though I must say the well above ordinary level of conceptional volume you are able to take in and comprehend, given your brain's inherent make-up, and your concentration capacities with a methodical bent towards closure, aka, closing the deal on what's really going on in CFS and what to do about it, has much to contribute here). ***I've only personally met two INFJs in my life time that I am aware of(both Ph.D.s in the counseling biz and I think the author of the book, Prozac Backlash, Dr ph Glenmullen is one, given the way he expresses his ideas in writing and how he appeared to me while being interviewed on NBCs Today Show, FWIW). I used to think I was INFJ before I looked into braintyping and then saw for certain I have the ENFJ or FCAL braintype(It actually made a genuine difference to clarify this in this way). But those who are natively ENFJs, I can see that they would be more likely to > participate in a list like this, and given the CFS might score as an > INFJ. ***Yes, I agree. *** Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 On 10/16/06, erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote: > > Interesting to play around with the concept of personality > associations. > But, in terms of causality, if the illness demonstrably shows the > capacity to ignore it completely, > it means the illness just plain doesn't care. > > Examing personality is kind of like interviewing survivors of a > sunken ship to see if personality traits correspond to how well > someone treads water. > It probably does, but that has very little to do with how they > wound up in the water. > - > ** OK, I read through the Cheney testimony, and I do not see support for your statement that 'the illness demonstrably shows the capacity to ignore it completely', with regard to personality associations. Unless Cheney or someone else has run personality testing and attempt to correlate the outcomes to CFS patients, the statement that 'the illness just plain doesn't care' is unsupported. The fact that CFS is an awful and misunderstood illness is clear from Cheney's statement, as well as our collective experience. The fact that there are concrete physiological parameters involving immune function is also clear. But physiological markers do not rule out a personality association. If CFS 'does not care' about personality, then we should see a normal personality distribution among PWC. But that is not what the survey is revealing among the group members. So the challenge is not to try and debunk the data from the survey, the results are obvious. If the survey just showed a small, marginal cluster, we could say it is probably just measurement error. But the survey shows a huge clustering that is over 20x higher than what is found in the general population (for the INFJ type). So I think the challenge here is to try to explain these results. I am an open-minded patient-researcher and am not afraid of exploring ANY relevant data that might shed light on the nature of CFS. I have explored the mold hypothesis, and even am acting on it to the extent I can. I explored the EMF hypothesis as well, and have acted on that. I have treated Lyme. I am studying the methylation genetics / GSH depletion hypothesis. Now there is a clear personality association and I plan to explore that as well. In an illness as complicated as CFS I believe that a whole systems approach is helpful, and the brain, and the way our brain responds to illness, is certainly a relevant aspect of CFS. To the extent that personality is correlated with brain genetics, there could clearly be personalities that are more or less prone to certain illnesses. And that is what some research is starting to show in a few other disease processes. Consider for example the possibility that personality is partly determined by the distribution of endorphin receptors in various parts of the brain. This could set up differentiations in the reward sensation for different ways of thinking, and could pre-dispose a person to utilize various regions of the brain more and less frequently, producing respective personality types. Now imagine that those same differences also influence parasympathetic responses. And then add neurotoxins to that person's nervous system. I don't know exactly how this type of bio-individuation might lead to differential immune or detox or emotional responses, but certainly there is a possible common basis for both a physiological and personality response in the way the brain is genetically structured. And regarding the sunken ship metaphor, how long someone can tread water may make the difference between hanging on until help arrives, and drowning. With CFS there may be a personality that simply is more vulnerable. Maybe not everyone with CFS has that personality, but many may, and for those people, strategies to help them 'tread water better' might make a big difference. --Kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 " Kurt Rowley " <kurtrowley@...> wrote: > > If CFS 'does not care' about personality, then we should see a normal personality distribution among PWC. But that is not what the survey is revealing among the group members. > Participants in CFS groups - and the subset of those who respond to the poll make this self selective group which possibly skews the results. The epidemic cases have no such capacity to " self select " and give a clearer indication of just who can fall prey to CFS. The illness managed to target nine teachers using the same room and half the girls basketball team in just one example of " not caring " . There are many others, but this should not be necessary, as the " exception disproves the rule " . Now, what are the odds that an illness which inspires " awe " at destroying peoples lives in a manner completely unfamiliar to doctors and society can be driven or dependent upon a specific personality type and yet find manifest in groups like this? Why do people keep implicating stress, emotion, personality, activity levels and individual " self inflicted " factors of negative attitudes and/or drugs/alcohol abuse/smoking... ..when the illness that was called " CFS " managed to go through groups of people and completely ignore these factors? Didn't we learn from all the etiological examples in the past that when an illness doesn't confine itself to temperament or character, that these attributions to personality have always been mistaken? Do we need research to determine if there is some kind of " personality " that blames things on personality despite all the exclusionary evidence that shows the illness easily transcends such limitations? Perhaps this is why emerging illness are always initially viewed as psychological, no matter how many times history has shown that this is the very last conclusion that people should be jumping to. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 > > If CFS 'does not care' about personality, then we should see a > normal personality distribution among PWC. But that is not what the > survey is revealing among the group members. > > Participants in CFS groups - and the subset of those who respond to > the poll make this self selective group which possibly skews the > results. The epidemic cases have no such capacity to " self select " > and give a clearer indication of just who can fall prey to CFS. > The illness managed to target nine teachers using the same room and > half the girls basketball team in just one example of " not caring " . > There are many others, but this should not be necessary, as > the " exception disproves the rule " . Of course, that is possible, that this group is self-selective for a given personality. If that is true, then we should see the same pattern in other similar groups. Also, a controlled scientific survey among a random selection of PWC would show a more normal personality distribution. But we do not have that data, what we have is an interesting result to one unscientific poll. My point is simply that this bears some further exploration. > Now, what are the odds that an illness which inspires " awe " at > destroying peoples lives in a manner completely unfamiliar to > doctors and society can be driven or dependent upon a specific > personality type and yet find manifest in groups like this? The poll shows a correlation between CFS and personality, but does not lead to the conclusion that CFS is driven by or dependent on a specific personality type. Correlation is not causation. There could be a common explanation for both the personality and the tendency to acquire CFS under sufficient triggering conditions. For example, a genetic brain structure that tends to produce a given personality might also tend to produce a given illness under sufficient conditions. The two results, personality and illness, might be largely independent, but stemming from the same cause. And the trigger for the illness could be a neurotoxin event in combination with the personality type, in fact that seems quite logical. If that is the case, then this is another possible explanation as to why not everyone became ill. However, in the case of the large numbers on the girls soccer team, please clarify. Are you saying that half of the team became PWC, and had the illness that we still have today? And are you saying that they are all still sick? Or did they all simply get a nasty mold, virus or bacteria exposure? > Why do people keep implicating stress, emotion, personality, > activity levels and individual " self inflicted " factors of negative > attitudes and/or drugs/alcohol abuse/smoking... > ..when the illness that was called " CFS " managed to go through > groups of people and completely ignore these factors? I don't believe a correlation between personality and CFS is necessarily self inflicted. Have you read this entire thread? There is emerging evidence that personality is partly or maybe even largely a physiological phenomenon. So we are not talking behavior here, nor psychology. This may be mostly about physiology. > Didn't we learn from all the etiological examples in the past that > when an illness doesn't confine itself to temperament or character, > that these attributions to personality have always been mistaken? I can not answer this, but believe that the pendulum swings back and forth. The explanations for illness are continually changing, there never seems to be a last word. > Do we need research to determine if there is some kind > of " personality " that blames things on personality despite all the > exclusionary evidence that shows the illness easily transcends such > limitations? Touche. There probably is a blaming personality. But I have not seen the exclusionary evidence, although that would be fairly easy to collect. A controlled study where the real MBTI was administered to random PWC would accomplish that with regard to the personality issue. --Kurt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Hi Kurt and all, Kurt Thank you for this personality survey study. I would like to mention that I retook the test trying to guess how I would answer before I got severely sick(bed ridden state). I changed form P to J. It seems that being severely sick and the transformation it brought to me have changed me in that aspect. Another note. Having so many J's in this group might be the reason of frequent somewhat hot discussions. I found another site that might be interesting for some of you on tests. http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html best wishes. Nil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 Kurt-what I was trying to say in an earlier post on this thread is that I believe many of the responders would have responded differently pre CFS. I mean, how many really sick PWCs seek large groups of people to be in, want to be in the middle of the room, would rather go to a party than read a good book, etc? The purpose of the survey is meritorious, but I just don't think you can take the results seriously because you are trying to determine what the personality type was *before* CFS rather than during CFS. My personality has changed dramatically and I am not nearly as sick as some of the list members based on their message about being bedridden, etc. I think you would get many more extroverts if you were able to go back in time and have the poll done pre-illness. Mike C > > > > If CFS 'does not care' about personality, then we should see a > > normal personality distribution among PWC. But that is not what the > > survey is revealing among the group members. > > > > Participants in CFS groups - and the subset of those who respond to > > the poll make this self selective group which possibly skews the > > results. The epidemic cases have no such capacity to " self select " > > and give a clearer indication of just who can fall prey to CFS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 16, 2006 Report Share Posted October 16, 2006 " Kurt Rowley " <kurtrowley@...> wrote: > Of course, that is possible, that this group is self-selective for a given personality. If that is true, then we should see the same > pattern in other similar groups. Also, a controlled scientific survey among a random selection of PWC would show a more normal personality distribution. But we do not have that data, what we have is an interesting result to one unscientific poll. My point is simply that this bears some further exploration. > > The poll shows a correlation between CFS and personality, but does not lead to the conclusion that CFS is driven by or dependent on a > specific personality type. Correlation is not causation. There could be a common explanation for both the personality and the tendency to acquire CFS under sufficient triggering conditions. However, in the case of the large numbers on the girls soccer team, > please clarify. Are you saying that half of the team became PWC, and had the illness that we still have today? And are you saying that they are all still sick? Or did they all simply get a nasty mold, virus or bacteria exposure? > > I don't believe a correlation between personality and CFS is > necessarily self inflicted. Have you read this entire thread? There is emerging evidence that personality is partly or maybe even largely a physiological phenomenon. So we are not talking behavior here, nor psychology. This may be mostly about physiology. > The explanations for illness are continually changing, there > never seems to be a last word. > --Kurt Other groups may " self select " for a number of different reasons and result in an inconsistent pattern in its individuals. " Why didn't everyone become ill " is a question that presumes everyone had the same exposure. Why doesn't everyone get Malaria, TB, AIDS, or anything else? Who would speculate that if a cluster of people in a building got E Coli or Hepatitis that any who did not must have had some mental factors that made the difference? Wouldn't people say it was just common sense that the sick individuals were the ones who had the exposure? As you say: " correlation is not causation " , but the epidemic cohorts show that at least under certain conditions, there is no correlation of personality traits to be found.. The Truckee teachers and basketball team members are still sick - as Dr noted in his 1999 " original CFS cohort study " that was reported on CNN, although some have had " substantial improvements " . I believe that there is no lack of exploration into the " CFS personality " from any possible physiological changes or gene alterations. Professor Wessely, Kings College and the Nijmegen School of Psychiatry have long been very intent on demonstrating such a correlation on the presumption that despite protestations of people claiming that they simply became ill - that such a connection must surely exist. I believe that when it comes to attributions of " hysteria " and concepts of behavioral maladaptative processes that have been historically applied inappropriately to emerging illnesses, no " last word " is necessary to know that diseases that now have an identifiable etiology can no longer be categorized as mental illnesses as they once were - but never should have been. In retrospect, there never was suitable evidence to formulate that hypothesis, let alone pursue it with such vigor. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 " Kurt Rowley " > Also, most PWC today were not involved in a cluster. I believe clusters have stronger triggers than what most PWC experience, so clusters may not be good models for all forms of CFS in the population today. Clusters are probably homogeneous triggers, such as sick building syndrome, or a particularly nasty virus, a strong EMF exposure, a communicable bacterial infection, etc. But what we see on these groups seems to be the result of heterogeneous triggers acting on a common genetic weakness. > People can't use the cluster cohorts as a model for illness only when it suits them and then just dismiss them whenever they don't fit their theory. That is unless they make it clear the the " CFS " they are discussing is " Unlike Original CFS " which was based upon people from these cohorts. How could a genetic weakness could have been so rare that nobody in our experience had ever seen any illness like this before, yet suddenly the same genetic weakness is suddenly so prevalent that CFS bursts out in people of all ages in an epidemic. This is kind of like Mendel crossing wrinkly peas with round peas and having all of his peas turn round - including the old parent peas that used to be wrinkly until the " YupPEA Flu " came through. > > wrote: As you say: " correlation is not causation " , but the epidemic cohorts show that at least under certain conditions, there is no correlation of personality traits to be found.. > > >Kurt wrote: Again, this is opinion. Unless you measure the personality traits (actually we are talking about MBTI, which is a temperment measure), there is no way to know whether this opinion that there was no correlation with personality traits is correct. Also, there could be common genetic factors in the subset of the Truckee teachers and team members who have remained sick. And those genetic traits could > translate into both immunological and temperment groupings. > If everyone in a group gets sick, they don't have the opportunity to insert personality profiles into the reason for being there. The illness hit everyone in the group regardless and shows that CFS is not subject to restrictions inherent to the hypothesis. Despite intense scrutiny to find such a correlation, the teachers and students were found to be just like all the other teachers and students with no outstanding character differences. Even if some personality type were somehow found to be genetically susceptible - one would still have to ask why these genotypes failed to manifest in an epidemic before if they had prior possession of this weakness and were susceptible to so many disparate triggers. > Correlation of MBTI type with an illness is not > 'categorizing as mental illness'. Rather I believe it is a > progressive exploration that supports a physiological, brain-based > basis of CFS. > --Kurt What basis is there to even suspect that a heretofore unknown illness no one recognized in any ancestral lines that can hit people in groups regardless of gender, age, activity or stress levels would target people whose susceptibility is manifested in a particular personality type? I thought this was beaten to death twenty years ago with the " Type A " concept, which was shown to be utterly without foundation. Is there some reason to investigate this based on any observation? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 Hi, Kurt. " Kurt Rowley " <kurtrowley@...> wrote: .... I am running the MBTI survey right now on a large Lyme group, partly to > address this issue, and so far the results mirror the responses from > this group. That supports my idea that the MBTI score is consistent > with a genetic typing that is over-represented in PWC and apparently > PWL for some reason. I also asked a friend to take the online MBTI. > He has CFS and is not involved in any kind of internet groups, no > support groups for CFS, etc., and his MBTI was INFJ, which is the > dominant group on this list so far. I admit this is not a lot of > evidence, but it is something, and does suggest the finding here is > not a fluke. ***Very very interesting. These poll results are now impressing me as a likely significant genetic and physiologic finding for CFS, particularly given that you see these two different groups results side by side and they mirror each others dramatic indication that the INFJ trait combination in the MBTI view(or the ENFJ trait combination I suspect most would be shown to be in the BTI view) are most susceptible to these neurotoxic injury/glutathione status effected chronic illnesses. ***It strikes me that Jon Neidnagel of BTI would be interested in seeing this data despite its not being a controlled scientific study. Upon seeing this data, I have the hunch that he might be willing to share his empirical findings in braintyping that may be potentially relevant to this area of investigation for CFS, even including his data on population distribution percentages for all 16 types. ***According to the braintypes.com website, he has recently sponsored or been integral to at least three brain mapping studies connected to individual cerebral traits and another study he is supporting appears to be looking for serum protein biomarkers that can distinguish each braintype. I suggest you email or mail him these polls results with a request for general feedback or answers to specific questions you might have of him. ***Here are some comments from a BTI webpage and it's url, where the comments are made in their original context, that lead me to suggest that the BTI might be quite receptive to this CFS data: " ... Brain mapping/imaging (both invasive and non-invasive) and biomechanical studies on the various Brain Types (BT) continue and are providing significant results....BT will have an appreciable future impact on how brain scans and neurological data are interpreted....A hindrance to making comprehensive sense of brain-mapping/imaging in the 21st century has been the lack of awareness as to individual cerebral differences. " http://www.braintypes.com/btispring06.htm ***If there is any further input I might be able to provide in supporting such a communication to the BTI should you chose to do so, please don't hesitate to ask. I have been studying braintyping, readily applying it for four years with striking outcomes, one example being that I observed that Dr Cheney is an INTP and that Rich V. is an INTJ(both types noted for consistent, exceptional, and sometimes history making contributions in the hard sciences, which said to me that they may be good horses with better odds than ordinary to bet on that some of their observations about CFS may be right on target, this aside the fact that they both have Ph.D.s and are well into years of experience enough not to fear them being completely " green " ). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 17, 2006 Report Share Posted October 17, 2006 That link to BTI is interesting, particularly the information about differential brain usage by brain type. So given the fact that we know that CFS often involves brain lesions, if those lesions tend to be patterned in a specific area of the brain, then people with a brain or MBTI type that heavily uses that area would probably suffer the most. Makes sense. And yes, I am definitely interested in pursuing this further. If you have contacts with BTI, that may be quite helpful, thanks for the offer. Please feel free to backchannel me about that. --Kurt > ... I am running the MBTI survey right now on a large Lyme group, partly to > > address this issue, and so far the results mirror the responses from > > this group. That supports my idea that the MBTI score is consistent > > with a genetic typing that is over-represented in PWC and apparently > > PWL for some reason. I also asked a friend to take the online MBTI. > > He has CFS and is not involved in any kind of internet groups, no > > support groups for CFS, etc., and his MBTI was INFJ, which is the > > dominant group on this list so far. I admit this is not a lot of > > evidence, but it is something, and does suggest the finding here is > > not a fluke. > > > > ***Very very interesting. These poll results are now impressing me as a likely significant > genetic and physiologic finding for CFS, particularly given that you see these two different > groups results side by side and they mirror each others dramatic indication that the INFJ > trait combination in the MBTI view(or the ENFJ trait combination I suspect most would be > shown to be in the BTI view) are most susceptible to these neurotoxic injury/glutathione > status effected chronic illnesses. > > > > ***It strikes me that Jon Neidnagel of BTI would be interested in seeing this data despite > its not being a controlled scientific study. Upon seeing this data, I have the hunch that he > might be willing to share his empirical findings in braintyping that may be potentially > relevant to this area of investigation for CFS, even including his data on population > distribution percentages for all 16 types. > > > > ***According to the braintypes.com website, he has recently sponsored or been integral to > at least three brain mapping studies connected to individual cerebral traits and another > study he is supporting appears to be looking for serum protein biomarkers that can > distinguish each braintype. I suggest you email or mail him these polls results with a > request for general feedback or answers to specific questions you might have of him. > > > > ***Here are some comments from a BTI webpage and it's url, where the comments are > made in their original context, that lead me to suggest that the BTI might be quite > receptive to this CFS data: > > > > " ... Brain mapping/imaging (both invasive and non-invasive) and biomechanical studies on > the various Brain Types (BT) continue and are providing significant results....BT will have > an appreciable future impact on how brain scans and neurological data are interpreted....A > hindrance to making comprehensive sense of brain-mapping/imaging in the 21st century > has been the lack of awareness as to individual cerebral differences. " > > > > http://www.braintypes.com/btispring06.htm > > > > ***If there is any further input I might be able to provide in supporting such a > communication to the BTI should you chose to do so, please don't hesitate to ask. I have > been studying braintyping, readily applying it for four years with striking outcomes, one > example being that I observed that Dr Cheney is an INTP and that Rich V. is an INTJ(both > types noted for consistent, exceptional, and sometimes history making contributions in > the hard sciences, which said to me that they may be good horses with better odds than > ordinary to bet on that some of their observations about CFS may be right on target, this > aside the fact that they both have Ph.D.s and are well into years of experience enough not > to fear them being completely " green " ). > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 Hi, Kurt. " Kurt Rowley " <kurtrowley@...> wrote: >That link to BTI is interesting, particularly the information about > differential brain usage by brain type. So given the fact that we > know that CFS often involves brain lesions, if those lesions tend to > be patterned in a specific area of the brain ***The lesioning seems to be predominantly in the right brain- in, near and around the right basal ganglia and right hippocampus. Even a respected London hospital in the UK found such evidence in studying ME/CFS sufferers, though their enthusiasm for the physical finding was clearly muted, given I suspect from HHS policy and the UKs attitude toward this diagnosis in general. , then people with a brain > or MBTI type that heavily uses that area would probably suffer the > most. Makes sense. ***I literally agree, but to add a bit more insightful detail in intepreting this I think its important to remind that your two polls using MBTI show a very large number with the " J " trait having CFS and CLD. " J " means left brained dominance while " P " means right brained dominance in the BTI view. ***So I suggest, given the evidence of predominant right side brain injury and dysfunction in CFS and this area of the brain considered as weaker or the one with the least efficient pathways according to braintyping, in left brain dominant individuals, CFS may be a pathology that takes advantage or renders dysfunction in our neuroanatomic weak spot, never mind biochemistry for a moment. ***And just to add a bit of caution and though we on these lists who do these polls are quite sick and badly suffering, it could be those with right brain dominance who have CFS or CLD are more often not healthy enough to be online or clear thinking enough when on to participate in these polls. I have reason to believe, given the greater efficiency in their right brains, those with right brain dominance might be more resilient to CFS or CLD, but the evidence that this pathology is hitting precisely where they live and what this might do should not be overlooked. > And yes, I am definitely interested in pursuing this further. If you > have contacts with BTI, that may be quite helpful, thanks for the > offer. Please feel free to backchannel me about that. ***Will do. *** <davidhall@> wrote: another study he is supporting appears to be looking for serum protein > biomarkers that can > > distinguish each braintype. I suggest you email or mail him these > polls results with a > > request for general feedback or answers to specific questions you > might have of him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 > " Kurt Rowley " > > Also, most PWC today were not involved in a cluster. I believe > clusters have stronger triggers than what most PWC experience, so > clusters may not be good models for all forms of CFS in the > population today. Clusters are probably homogeneous triggers, such > as sick building syndrome, or a particularly nasty virus, a strong > EMF exposure, a communicable bacterial infection, etc. But what we > see on these groups seems to be the result of heterogeneous triggers > acting on a common genetic weakness. On 10/17/06, erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote: > > > > People can't use the cluster cohorts as a model for illness only > when it suits them and then just dismiss them whenever they don't > fit their theory. Why? Why is sporadic illness - that satisfies, e.g. the Canadian Guidelines - different than cluster illness? It might argue a different cause but the end-state looks the same. > That is unless they make it clear the the " CFS " they are discussing > is " Unlike Original CFS " which was based upon people from these > cohorts. I thought we were discussing ME, which is recognized in both epidemic and sporadic forms. > How could a genetic weakness could have been so rare that nobody in > our experience had ever seen any illness like this before, > yet suddenly the same genetic weakness is suddenly so prevalent that > CFS bursts out in people of all ages in an epidemic. See http://www.name-us.org/ResearchPages/ResEpidemic.htm#M.E._Epidemics - 52 oubreaks prior to 1984. Yes they are epidemics - no, this disease was not unknown in 1984. In '88, Parrish, Hyde and Shekelov agreed it was ME and walked out of the Holmes defintion when Strauss insisted on the name CFS. Kurt has made a good hypothesis above to cover epidemics that hit lots of people (still not everyone, though - what about the other half of that basketball team?) and sporadic cases that might be pickier. > If everyone in a group gets sick, they don't have the opportunity > to insert personality profiles into the reason for being there. Kurt addressed this , as quoted above. , I am sorry that you've gotten big doses of AIYH over the years, but that doesn't mean that mental/emotional factors must be completely ignored. They just have to be in their rightful place - a possible co-factor in a disease that is ultimately dysfunction of neurological, immune, and endocrine systems. - Bob Niederman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 " bob niederman " wrote: > Why? Why is sporadic illness - that satisfies, e.g. the Canadian > Guidelines - different than cluster illness? It might argue a > different cause but the end-state looks the same. > > I thought we were discussing ME, which is recognized in both epidemic and sporadic forms. > > , I am sorry that you've gotten big doses of AIYH over the years, but that doesn't mean that mental/emotional factors must be completely ignored. They just have to be in their rightful place - a possible co-factor in a disease that is ultimately dysfunction of neurological, immune, and endocrine systems. > > - Bob Niederman > I didn't say sporadic was different than cluster illness. I said that if you formulate a hypothesis that depends on individual characteristics of extreme rarity - that automatically excludes the cohorts in which such a phenomenon would be astronomically improbable. The very clue that led Polly Murray to bring attention to Lyme disease. And these cluster outbreaks were the very people used as prototypes for CFS. So if a hypothesis depends upon and can only be reconciled with individualistic factors, it excludes itself from CFS. Again, Polly Murrays observation of " genetic JRA " that hit Lyme Conn. in " impossible " numbers. When I say CFS, as an Incline survivor, you may be assured that I am describing " original CFS " or ME/CFS Canadian. Any degree to which this illness may be corrected by mental/emotional factors is the degree to which it IS a mental/emotional illness. The ME/CFS phenomenon that I observed is a horrifying physiological illness that has emotional lability as a consequence - not as a cause. Yes I can ignore all assertions of mental causality, they have no place in this illness. When I say this illness was unknown, I mean it was unknown by all who saw it. The statements of Dr Cheney, Dr , Dr Bell, Dr Rhyll and all who saw this indicate clearly that this was completely outside their experience and knowledge. Royal Free was similarly unknown at the time. We had people crossing the world and finding no one who could express the circumstances of the illness to them. Doctors didn't know it. Our families didn't know it. The CDC/NIH didn't know it. Our Grandparents had never seen anything like it. After all these years, the number of doctors in the U.S. who have since expressed their familiarity can almost be counted on one hand. It has been amazing to see years of " CFS can't exist because no one has ever seen anything like this - and it could not have gone unnoticed " replaced with the amazing concept that " CFS has always existed and is so common that it is unnoticeable as being anything out of the ordinary " . We are talking about schoolchildren who CANNOT STAND UP. Not something you forget. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 It seems to me that the reason this illness and many others weren't known by our grandparents, or even our parents really is because they were living in a time without the toxic overload we experience now. In the civil war more soldiers died of infection from wounds than the actual wounds themselves. In other words the body was bombarded and opportunistic illness set in. Then it was a matter of a different bombardment. Now its metals, chemicals, fumes, plastics and the list goes on. We're wounded and illness follows. I'm sure there's a genetic component to it as pointed out about people that can ward off HIV. I have friends that have Hep C for example. She is very ill and going through the interferon treatment while her partner of 25 years who obviously contracted it from her or vise versa has the antibodies, but no viral load AT ALL. His immune system just tossed it out. Believe me her personality is changing as she becomes progressively worse. Being this sick can wack you out. Edy Re: CFS Personality Type Survey " bob niederman " wrote: > Why? Why is sporadic illness - that satisfies, e.g. the Canadian > Guidelines - different than cluster illness? It might argue a > different cause but the end-state looks the same. > > I thought we were discussing ME, which is recognized in both epidemic and sporadic forms. > > , I am sorry that you've gotten big doses of AIYH over the years, but that doesn't mean that mental/emotional factors must be completely ignored. They just have to be in their rightful place - a possible co-factor in a disease that is ultimately dysfunction of neurological, immune, and endocrine systems. > > - Bob Niederman > I didn't say sporadic was different than cluster illness. I said that if you formulate a hypothesis that depends on individual characteristics of extreme rarity - that automatically excludes the cohorts in which such a phenomenon would be astronomically improbable. The very clue that led Polly Murray to bring attention to Lyme disease. And these cluster outbreaks were the very people used as prototypes for CFS. So if a hypothesis depends upon and can only be reconciled with individualistic factors, it excludes itself from CFS. Again, Polly Murrays observation of " genetic JRA " that hit Lyme Conn. in " impossible " numbers. When I say CFS, as an Incline survivor, you may be assured that I am describing " original CFS " or ME/CFS Canadian. Any degree to which this illness may be corrected by mental/emotional factors is the degree to which it IS a mental/emotional illness. The ME/CFS phenomenon that I observed is a horrifying physiological illness that has emotional lability as a consequence - not as a cause. Yes I can ignore all assertions of mental causality, they have no place in this illness. When I say this illness was unknown, I mean it was unknown by all who saw it. The statements of Dr Cheney, Dr , Dr Bell, Dr Rhyll and all who saw this indicate clearly that this was completely outside their experience and knowledge. Royal Free was similarly unknown at the time. We had people crossing the world and finding no one who could express the circumstances of the illness to them. Doctors didn't know it. Our families didn't know it. The CDC/NIH didn't know it. Our Grandparents had never seen anything like it. After all these years, the number of doctors in the U.S. who have since expressed their familiarity can almost be counted on one hand. It has been amazing to see years of " CFS can't exist because no one has ever seen anything like this - and it could not have gone unnoticed " replaced with the amazing concept that " CFS has always existed and is so common that it is unnoticeable as being anything out of the ordinary " . We are talking about schoolchildren who CANNOT STAND UP. Not something you forget. - ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.408 / Virus Database: 268.13.5/483 - Release Date: 10/18/2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 On 10/18/06, erikmoldwarrior <erikmoldwarrior@...> wrote: > Again, Polly Murrays observation of " genetic JRA " that hit Lyme > Conn. in " impossible " numbers. You keep talking about " inherited disease " whenever anybody brings up " genetic predisposition " . Why is that? They are DIFFERENT. Sporadic cases indicate that CFS/ME can be caused bu something other than a contagion that wipes out all in it's path. And speaking of that, you never did answer my question: What happened to the other half of the girls basketball team? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 18, 2006 Report Share Posted October 18, 2006 " bob niederman " <bobn1955@...> wrote: > You keep talking about " inherited disease " whenever anybody brings up > " genetic predisposition " . Why is that? They are DIFFERENT. > Sporadic cases indicate that CFS/ME can be caused bu something other > than a contagion that wipes out all in it's path. > And speaking of that, you never did answer my question: What happened > to the other half of the girls basketball team? > Because people generally place " genetic predisposition " in a context of heritable genes. Since every structure and function of any living thing is " genetic " , if one wishes to say that the environmental or infection is the cause of a genetic alteration that results in a predisposition, they can simply use the customary terms indicating that an infection or toxic exposure is responsible, and avoid making a statement that is so broad as to be meaningless for encompassing virtually anything and everything genetic. Sporadic cases do not indicate that the etiology is necessarily different, just as Yellow Fever followed the same pattern as CFS in that it could strike groups and give the compelling appearance of contagion, and also hit individuals in a " sporadic " way that appeared to disprove any capacity to be contagious. As far as I know, nothing happened to the rest of the team. Just as nothing happened to the other nurse trainees, doctors and patients at Royal Free. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.