Biopsychosocial risk factors of persistent fatigue after acute infection: A systematic review to inform interventions, 2017, Hulme, Moss-Morris et al

Split from here.

While posting related papers, I'm afraid I just saw this Moss-Morris review was recently given a prize place on wikipedia's CFS entry:

​

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28712416

 

http://twin.sci-hub.tw/6390/5b3cdd73f9051196c6ebb66893f71948/hulme2017.pdf

 

17 papers were removed during eligibility determinations due to “No baseline risk factors of fatigue over time (n= 17)”. Not sure what that means?

 

Doesn't the Pariente paper refute this? As the article itself isn't specific to 'CFS', while the Pariente paper is, there's probably a case to be made for using the more direct evidence.

 

Just skimming through but it doesn't appear to be much more than just trying to prop up the usual arguments and simply using a review as a convenient tool that they have been discussed at some point while adding their own prior perspective, as is tradition.

It says risk factors but as usual this is just fishing for weak correlations and arguing they may be causative. But it's been 30 years of this exact same fishing expedition with the same arguments by some of the same people with the same methods. Not even sure what's the point of this, it's just the same old rehashing as the last 30 years. At best it confirms this model has been stuck at the same place it began with and has not budged one bit.

I mean, it argues that GP visits and sick days are a "risk factor". Literally pointing at the smoke being responsible for the fire. What weird people with ridiculous ideas. They're completely stuck in the corner they painted and can't find their way out.

And yet this is exactly what they are doing, drawing conclusions that may have been true for 30 years and yet are clearly not.

Here I'm not sure if they are being daft or simply feigning ignorance but surely by now they must know that most CFS patients are not bedbound and so prolonged bed-rest leading to deconditioning is a falsified hypothesis. As for diagnosis, or here "sick certification", being a risk factor in illness I simply have no words. A cancer diagnosis is a risk factor for cancer. Good grief what nonsense.

This review is mostly a poor attempt at trying to prop up the classic loopy cycle that has been used to explain various psychosomatic illness for decades, identical to the one used in peptic ulcers about some maladaptive pattern.

There's literally no point or purpose to this. Enough. Get over yourselves and move on to more productive pursuits, like planting trees or whatever.