The role of low-grade inflammation in ME/CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) - associations with symptoms, 2019, Jonsjö et al

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306453019313198

 

To facilitate sharing

 

Easier to read abstract

and Sci hub link, https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2019.104578

 

Interesting

 

What's the difference?

 

It's only got the abstract in the quote box.

 

This article is based on their ACT study (same ethical approval application/research plan from 2015). Some related S4ME threads here:

The role of low-grade inflammation [...] in ME/CFS (planned study) Andreasson et al

Discussing acceptance and commitment therapy in ME/CFS.

Sweden: ACT for ME/CFS - an Open Case Trial

The prevalence and impact of psychoneuroimmunological factors in ME/CFS: Effects and mechanisms of ACT (2019) Olsson et al.

Patients with ME/CFS and chronic pain report similar level of sickness behavior as individuals injected with bacterial endotoxin... 2019, Jonsjö et al

Sickness & behavior in ME/CFS (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome) - Jonsjö, Martin 2019 (Thesis)

 

Psychoneuroendocrinology new variation of Psychoneuroimmunology, Carmine Pariantes speciality and Gabrielle Murphys preferred model:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/speec...rence-2014-gabrielle-murphy.7597/#post-142867

founded in BPS, so need to be a bit wary.

eta:
see also
https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-u...-a-global-overview-2005-nicholas-cohen.13075/

 

I agree.

 

From the article, my bolding:

Isn't using the term sickness behavior and theorizing that persistent sickness behavior is causing symptoms in ME patients characteristic of the BPS cabal?

Edit:Just to clarify, the question is rhetorical since these researchers are part of the BPS cabal.

Edit2: The question is apparently not rhetorical. These researchers have however only produced BPS-research in the past, and while it might not be obvious by reading just this particular paper, if one reads their complete body of work, I think it is fair to say they are part of the BPS cabal. One of the researchers involved, Gunnar Olsson, is personally responsible for many Swedish ME patients having lost large parts of their life during the past decade, due to deterioration after following his activity increasing advice.
I for one do not trust them a bit.

 

2009
Psychoneuroimmunology: a bio-psycho-social approach to health and disease.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19930265

eta:
Psychoneuroimmunology: validation of the biopsychosocial model
https://academic.oup.com/fampra/article/17/1/90/507677

 

My understanding is that they are saying that sickness behaviours 'contribute' to ME symptoms. I tend to agree in my particular case because I experience both in almost 30 yrs.

 

No, rest assured that sickness behavior perspectives of ME/CFS come from the biomedical camp, not the biopsychosocial camp. Sickness behavior is the set of symptoms you get from an infection, hence it implies some sort of infectious or inflammatory process behind it.

Michael Maes looked at whether sickness behavior might be involved in ME/CFS in one of his papers, and Michael VanElzakker's vagus nerve infection hypothesis of ME/CFS involves sickness behavior also.

 

Technically no. It's the proper clinical term. In chemotherapy patients, this would include nausea and fatigue.

But that's the problem with behavioral models that overrule medicine, it's impossible to tell whether they are using the proper term or using it with deceitful intent to mean something else entirely.

Were the BPS model an honest and legitimate effort, they would take great pains to clear up ambiguity. But they do the opposite, exploit the confusion deliberately, because the deceit is itself part of the model.

So then it becomes about whether they are real scientists or believe in the BPS nonsense. It appears to be the latter, so here they probably use the incorrect meaning, but using the terminology itself isn't necessarily characteristic. It just creates so much unnecessary confusion, but without it the BPS model can't even pretend to have substance.

 

@Hip @rvallee
OK, thanks for explaining. I stand corrected.
But when the suggested treatment for said sickness behavior, eg symptoms, is to ignore it and pursue activities regardless, because sickness behavior is not considered to be part of or reflect a severe illness, as is suggested by this research team in other studies, like the ACT study, then it is clearly BPS, right?
Because that is what they do, and how they use the term. I do not think Michael VanElzakker would argue that sickness behavior implicates ME is not a severe disease and that PEM should not be taken seriously.

You are right @rvallee, they really do create a lot of confusion while trying to achieve medical credibility.

I wish tough, that people would view this paper in a larger context, considering all the work that has been produced by this research team, of which this particular paper is just a small part. This research team have been active in Sweden for many years and represent a large part of the (bio) psychosocial research being done here.

 

There's an alternative name sometimes used: sickness response. I think that's a better term than sickness behaviour.

I also think some clinicians see a link and therefore assume the sickness response causes, or is, ME. But it could be the other way around too: ME causes a prolonged sickness response.

 

I would say something causes a prolonged sickness response and the clinical picture is called ME.

 

Do not know but if sickness response is seen in animals they must be kept as stressfree as possible.

The advice can even go as far as put them in a dark quit place.