What a lot of Twaddle!

WHAT A LOT OF TWADDLE!
By
Gurli Bagnall


The way I see it is, there are two classes of  medical theorists.

The theorist with empathy and common sense is most likely to find the scientific truths that benefit mankind.

The theorist with no common sense, no empathy and little, if any, sense of reality, relies largely upon manipulation of  definitions and facts to "prove" his "argument." In general, sickness in others irritate him for it highlights his personal shortcomings; his dogmatic insistence that he is never wrong, has the potential to cause a great deal of harm to others. The only way this person will ever come to grips with reality, is to learn the lessons the hard way  -  through personal experience.

None could be more deserving than James F. Jones.

After reading the opening summary of  his paper  "An extended concept of
altered self:  Chronic fatigue and post-infection syndromes,"  I was left in
no doubt as to which category he falls into.  On seeking further information
about this author, I found he has also lectured on the subject of CFS
(specifically) in women. The separation of the genders offers another clue
to the mind set of James Jones.

What Jones calls CFS, others call ME and on reading his diagnostic
criteria,  I wondered just how much he actually knows about this
disease/illness/sickness. Clearly he is of the opinion that it revolves
mainly around fatigue.  If only that were true!  If only respiratory and
cardiac  discomforts would go away.  If only the newly developed reaction to
a variety of foods and chemicals would disappear.  If only light would not
hurt the eyes. If only  etc. etc.

The summary of a paper is the first impression the reader receives. Clarity
is of the utmost importance but in Jones' paper, it was lost in  the
convoluted terminology. It takes more than a jumble of technical terms
strung together with theory/opinion to make a scientific paper.

If ten of Jones' colleagues were chosen at random to analyse its meaning,
I have no doubt they would produce ten very different views.

From a paitent's point of view, he should not have to stop and wonder how to answer thequestion, "How are you today?" in case "I am feeling nauseas" is misinterpreted in his records.   Too many know to their  cost that this is common practice.

The question in the second line in the introduction,  provided a splendid
example of the need some medical personnel have to present simple issues as
complex and far too difficult for the (ignorant) lay community to
understand. Quote:  "Why do people feel sick during an infection?: There
are children who could tell Jones it is nature's warning that something is
wrong.  

The essay was written chiefly around this theme and there is no hidden merit
- it only IMPLIES  that signs and symptoms at such times are complicated and
outside the understanding of ordinary folk.   Strangely, many perfectly
healthy doctors demonstrate some of the self same signs and symptoms
mentioned by Jones  -  for example irritability and  lack of concentration
(read: interest) particularly when it comes to ME patients.

In his 1st of January posting entitled: "An insight into how CDC CFS
researcher, James Jones is thinking," Tom Kindlon expressed concerns
about the distinction Jones makes between  disease, illness and sickness.
This common tactic is used constantly. When it suits their purpose;  when
they wish to create confusion and the illusion of medical expertise and
mystique;  when they wish to create a diversion (damage control) from an embarrassing scandal,  many in the medical profession  re-define and mis-use words and proven facts; worse still,  they do it while looking you straight in the eye and without so much as a blush of shame.

Interestingly, Jones  provides  in part  the reason  for a drop in medical
standards and the epidemic of preventable medical error.  He makes it clear
that listening to medical histories as told by "subjective patients," is a complete waste of time.    At one time, taking a competent medical history
was a required, basic skill.

Attitudes as expressed in this essay contribute hugely to the iatrogenic
statistics  - as far as they are known. It's been a long time coming but
finally someone is getting annoyed. "All hospitals should be fined if
patients contract superbug infections or are harmed by medical errors while in their care, the Government's  Chief Medical Officer said yesterday." (Hospitals to pay for harming patients. TIMESONLINE 14 December, 2007) Sounds good but don't expect it to happen tomorrow!

Jones did take the precaution of mentioning that a comparison of "ill",
"sick", "illness", "sickness" and "disease" shows their interdependency.
What he does not say, is that "illness", "sickness" and "disease"  are
synonymous and admitting to their "interdependency" does not excuse him for
redefining the terms.

The attempt to make a distinction between disease and illness is not new.
Medical education discourages independent thinking and  this  claim has been
made so often that many of Jones' colleagues no doubt believe it is true.
But can any conscious person  truly believe: three constructs may occur in
varying combinations.  The first is illness and sickness in the absence of
disease; disease and illness may exist in the absence of sickness. The third
situation is disease and sickness in the absence of illness?

Politeness dictates that I restrict my criticism to one word: "Twaddle!"

In adopting this ploy,  Jones made a blatant attempt to bamboozle his
audience or readership with so-called "science".  No prizes for guessing
where ME slots into Jones' theory -  theory, because it sure as heck, ain't
science.

The simple truth is:

THERE ARE NONE SO DISEASED AS THOSE WHO SUFFER A TERMINAL ILLNESS.



Gurli Bagnall
Marlborough
New Zealand
URSULA@xtra.co.nz

4 January, 2008

* * *

Like Gurli, I've found things I said to doctors completely misconstrued when I got copies of my medical records.  Somehow, even the statement "I was diagnosed with CFS in 1987 by a virologist" got translated as "self-diagnosed" and that I was saying CFS only to avoid the stigma of mental illness that would accompany admitting to a history of depression.

So much of what is in my medical records (including the date I stopped working) can be documentably proven to be false.  According to one doctor, I stopped working 12 years before I lost my job -- let's cast doubt on the woman's disability claim by portraying her as someone who was a pampered housewife throughout her marriage and is claiming to be disabled only because she doesn't like being back in the work force after the divorce.  Obviously, my tax documents prove that one to be false, but it was a nice try on his part to discredit my claim. 

Tags: CFS, CFS/ME, ME/CFS. illness, disease, sickness, chronic fatigue syndrome, women, doctors, medical history