Thank you for your reply
@PhysiosforME .
And apologies for my unbalanced comment. I appreciate your work and the impact of it. My congratulations to your anniversary should have preceded my hint to my concerns about the details on which publisher will sell your book.
I just was really shocked when I had a look at the publisher's website which seems to be a depository for the promotion of fashionable non-evidenced treatments and trendy life-style myths.
That's OK as long as people don't conflate it with science. If it's sold as science though, that's exactly the sort of claims we need to debunk and push back when people try to impose them on the understanding of illnesses, in particular contested illnesses, and chronically ill people.
It's good that you have control on content but I'm afraid my concerns sill apply.
Now that there is more awareness for ME due to post covid syndromes these illnesses seem to present an emerging market for all kind of health care / wellness business people and if there is a chance to appear more science-based they will use it.
Also, I'd like to reiterate what others said regarding assumptions about the pathophysiology of ME.
See most recent forum discussion here:
Over which physiological abnormalities in ME/CFS is there a scientific consensus about? | Science for ME
https://www.s4me.info/threads/over-...scientific-consensus-about.20900/#post-349883
You might find Snow Leopard's comment on the 2 days CPET test particularly interesting.
https://www.s4me.info/threads/over-...scientific-consensus-about.20900/#post-350001
I'm sorry that I can't hide my concerns about these parts of the news.
Having said that, thanks for your important work and for engaging with us S4ME folks.