I dislike "skeptics." While I am generally not supportive of many of the alternative remedies they like to attack, I find skeptics to be arrogant, dismissive, and incurious and, above all, to lack empathy. I don't at all see a desire to advance knowledge in the articles these folk write, but rather a desire to demonstrate superiority and enforce a certain cultural dogma, without regard for nuance.
I first heard of Hall through the first Rituxan
article she references in her current article. It's not unreasonable to take the position that patients shouldn't be trying drugs that haven't been approved for their disease, but Hall goes much further, stoking disdain for terribly ill patients, devoting little energy to trying to understand the conditions under which desperately ill patients might jump to spend absurd amounts of money to try risky, untested treatments. The article itself is titled "Jumping the Gun," and all you need to know about what she thinks of patients, at least at the time she wrote the article, is reflected in the first two sentences:
"Now that the XMRV myth has been put to rest, patients with Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) are no longer jumping the gun to demand anti-retroviral treatments. But they are jumping the gun in new ways, based on very preliminary data coming out of Norway."
Her next
article on "CFS" is a mess. Through most of the article, she suggests respect for and agreement with the IOM report and the desire to diagnose "CFS" by definitions more exacting than Fukuda. By the end, however, she switches more overtly to editorial mode and, parroting completely the BPS line, effectively tells us that everything she's just reviewed is a bunch of bullshit:
"Unexplained symptoms are common and frustrating. Doctors have always been puzzled by patients who complained of fatigue and a variety of associated symptoms without any identifiable pathological cause. Today’s CFS patients would once have been diagnosed with neurasthenia, a diagnosis that has been abandoned. “Fad” diagnoses wax and wane in popularity as both patients and doctors strive to give unexplained symptoms a satisfying name.
The same constellation of symptoms might be variously diagnosed by different mainstream and alternative medical providers as CFS, fibromyalgia, chronic Lyme disease, Gulf War syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), multiple chemical sensitivity, environmental sensitivity, candidiasis, and any number of fake diseases. However the symptoms start, they quickly become complicated by deconditioning. As patients exercise less, they become less able to exercise. Muscles atrophy with disuse, endurance declines. Confirmation bias sets in. The sick role becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. Whatever the underlying pathology, the degree of suffering is affected by psychological factors. It is devilishly difficult to sort out the physical from the psychological and to know how best to help these sufferers. Current treatments are not very effective." (My bolding).
I've read her current article and the article on PACE and there are other problems with these. I could elaborate, but why bother? From the few articles I've read, she has an angle, one that generally is deferential to the culturally dominant position and dismissive of already marginalized patients, and she has an analysis, which is generally pretty half-baked and incurious.