1. Guest, the 'News In Brief' post for w/c 17th September is available here.
    Dismiss Notice

The Biopolitics of CFS/ME

Discussion in 'BioMedical ME/CFS Research' started by Daisymay, Jun 12, 2018.

  1. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    304
    Likes Received:
    3,431
    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1369848617300705


    The Biopolitics of CFS/ME

    Author Nikos Karfakis

    Highlights
    •The diagnosis of CFS/ME is not only a scientific issue nor only contested within the confines of the clinic, but a much broader, biopolitical problem.

    •Attempts at making CFS/ME a stable epistemic object, have so far been only partially successful.

    •CFS/ME advocacy groups have been increasingly active internationally, making various demands on the scientific establishment and the governments.


    Abstract


    The diagnosis of CFS/ME is not only a scientific issue nor only contested within the confines of the clinic, but a much broader, biopolitical problem.

    This paper argues that Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) constitutes a biopolitical problem, a scientific object which needs to be studied, classified and regulated.

    Assemblages of authorities, knowledges and techniques make CFS/ME subjects and shape their everyday conduct in an attempt to increase their supposed autonomy, wellbeing and health.

    CFS and CFS/ME identities are however made not only through government, scientific, and medical interventions but also by the patients themselves, a biosocial community who collaborates with scientists, educates itself about the intricacies of biomedicine, and contests psychiatric truth claims.

    CFS/ME is an illness trapped between medicine and psychology, an illness that is open to debate and therefore difficult to manage and standardise.

    The paper delineates different interventions by medicine, science, the state and the patients themselves and concludes that CFS/ME remains elusive, only partially standardised, in an on-going battle between all the different actors that want to define it for their own situated interests.
     
  2. Sean

    Sean Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    966
    Likes Received:
    7,979
    The interests of patients outweigh those of all other 'actors' combined.

    Yet our interests have been by far the least recognised, respected, and served.

    That must change.
     
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,063
    Likes Received:
    16,937
    I've not seen the full text, but Wessely doesn't like it, so that's a good sign:

     
    Lidia, Hutan, Milo and 16 others like this.
  4. Sly Saint

    Sly Saint Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,721
    Likes Received:
    14,119
  5. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    8,085
    Location:
    UK
    I may read this

    Thanks for the link to the full paper @Sly Saint.
     
  6. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    8,085
    Location:
    UK
    Dated 8th June 2018 in Science Direct, but I think it's fairly old with references seeming to be no later than 2011 that I can see. (edit to add Doh! it's dated 2013.)


    It wasn't always clear to me what the author was trying to achieve and I'm left with the impression that muddy waters were made a little muddier. Possibly my fault.
     
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2018
    Simone, Hutan, Dolphin and 6 others like this.
  7. BruceInOz

    BruceInOz Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    1,293
    Location:
    Tasmania
    I thought it was a useless piece of poorly written waffle that said nothing. Sorry I wasted my time reading it! The 2013 date (which I missed) I guess may explain the excessive focus on XMRV.

    ETA: The correct date is 2018, not 2013
     
    Last edited: Jun 14, 2018
    Hutan, Dolphin, Daisymay and 3 others like this.
  8. BruceInOz

    BruceInOz Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    191
    Likes Received:
    1,293
    Location:
    Tasmania
    The link given by @Sly Saint is to a PhD thesis, not the paper mentioned in the OP. The paper (which I got from scihub) says

    "Received 22 April 2017; Received in revised form 1 October 2017; Accepted 29 May 2018"
     
    JaimeS, Dolphin, Daisymay and 5 others like this.
  9. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    394
    Likes Received:
    2,455
    It doesn't add anything new and there are some proofreading issues/errors too, some words have opposite meaning e.g. harmless instead of harmful.
     
    Hutan, Dolphin, Daisymay and 5 others like this.
  10. Woolie

    Woolie Committee member

    Messages:
    1,970
    Likes Received:
    12,265
    Better, easier to read, published version here.

    It is very surprising the paper got published, as it appears to be a rather superficial game of "he says, she says" - bits of other papers and other people's arguments, which are described and not actually evaluated in any serious manner. It is also very out of date, including hardly any references from the last ten years (my guess is the student started the thesis a decade ago, and didn't bother with a full update).

    The stuff on the brain is bizarre - its not as if that's the only current line of inquiry - and the decision to include a figure from am imaging study was just weird, as its clear the author has no clue what those areas of activation might actually mean.

    I'm have to say, I find myself (rather shockingly) in agreement with Wessely on this one.

    Edit: sorry, just noticed others had pointed out how out-of-date it is too.
     
    Hutan, Snowdrop, JaimeS and 8 others like this.
  11. Skycloud

    Skycloud Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,074
    Likes Received:
    8,085
    Location:
    UK
    OK. The PHD thesis is whhere I got 2013 from - that's making sense to me now. Don't think I can be bothered to read the published version
     
  12. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    508
    Likes Received:
    4,918
     
    Last edited: Aug 10, 2018
  13. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
     
    JaimeS likes this.
  14. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
    I wonder has he got this right: I don't follow the logic.
     
    Hutan and adambeyoncelowe like this.
  15. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
    I don't believe that's right unless perhaps in the US.
    I'm not sure who said that the ICD-11 would classify CFS like this?
     
    Inara and adambeyoncelowe like this.
  16. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
  17. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
     
  18. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
     
    adambeyoncelowe and JaimeS like this.
  19. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
    I never knew that DeLuca said this.
     
    adambeyoncelowe likes this.
  20. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    912
    Likes Received:
    4,471
     
    adambeyoncelowe likes this.

Share This Page