Demystifying Medicine video: "What is chronic fatigue syndrome?"

[Webdog]

A decent undergraduate McMaster University student video about "chronic fatigue syndrome". It covers the PACE Trial and correctly concludes the results are unreliable. Worth a watch.

The case study, of a fictitious person named "Hannah", is very good.



Overall, quite good for YouTube. A few nitpicks after rewatching:

• Uses "chronic fatigue syndrome", not ME/CFS.
  
• Gives "childhood trauma" as a risk factor.
  
• Indicates CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion (not so anymore in the United States).
• Misses that PACE is also unreliable because it included patients with other fatiguing conditions.
• Discusses antidepressants for patients with depression, but doesn't provide any warnings (e.g. the CDC says "However, doctors should use caution in prescribing these medications. Some drugs used to treat depression have other effects that might worsen other ME/CFS symptoms and cause side effects.")
• Discusses energy management, but never uses the term "Pacing".
• Discusses post exertional malaise, but never uses the terms post exertional malaise or PEM.
• Symptom list is "fatigue, loss of memory, lack of concentration, headaches, extreme exhaustion". Doesn't match any criteria I'm aware of.
• Cites research showing an "Increased number of natural killer cells". Is this correct?

Edit: After googling, I discovered McMaster University is in Canada. Some of my criticisms may not be valid outside the US.

 

[Forbin]

Usually, videos like this wind up being fairly equivocal, but not this time...

Having such a debilitating condition with no sufficient (and even falsely claimed) research is extremely difficult. For these reasons, doctors and scientists must further research on treatments and causes for CFS.

This condition illuminates the importance of research that is fact-based and supported by real data found from unbiased trials.

Hopefully, more awareness will inform individuals still following the PACE study's treatments - such as graded exercise and CBT - and let these individuals know that these treatments are not backed by legitimate research and should not be followed.

 

[WillowJ]

Cites research showing an "Increased number of natural killer cells". Is this correct?

I have never heard of that. Most studies report the number as being fine, just the function is low. This would have implications for immune problems.

Occasionally there will be a report in the literature or from patients that if you count all the markers on the NK cells you get a different mix of markers than expected.

Further reading: https://www.bio-rad-antibodies.com/nk-cell-receptor-antibodies.html