When I used it I was not implying hysteria. If hysteria implies secondary gain and conversion then definitely not. Jenkins's account is problematic because it talks of spread of 'hysterical symptoms'. Does that mean symptoms due to hysteria or the sort of symptoms that one also sees in hysteria or what? And what does Jenkins think hysteria means?
To me it is all irrelevant in the end because it is about an acute illness that is not the ME we are interested in.
I fear that I may find this subject to be of greater interest than others do, but hey ho...
On rereading McE and B it is clear that they distinguish between "mass hysteria" and individuals suffering from hysteria, whether in a mass or not. Mass hysteria appears to be an otherwise unexplained group reaction in a situation of suggestibility and apprehension. They make clear that there is no imputation of "hysterical" characteristics, of the sort usually associated with the word, in the individuals concerned. It is to this which I thought the idea of suggestibility was similar.
To revert to the early post about seeing some justification for SW's views one can see what he might have intended, although it might have been better for him to make clearer the distinction between "hysteria" and "mass hysteria". I now interpret SW as saying that "epidemic ME" involved "mass hysteria" but that this does not equate to CFS (or, by extension, ME). This seems a valid argument, but only if one accepts that epidemic ME did involve mass hysteria to any substantial degree. It is inevitable that in any group there will always be cases at the periphery, and it may be that some of the epidemic cases were as difficult to classify as are some sporadic cases.
The reason SW gets into difficulty is that he previously stated "Jenkin's conclusion seems the most reasonable "the majority of cases were a hysterical reaction to a small number of poliomyelitis cases among the staff"", although this was not Jenkin's expressed view. Her expressed view was very different. This might lead people to suppose that SW considered the cases to involve hysteria rather than the different "mass hysteria". Words are important.
I beg to differ on the question of the relevance of this. It seems to me that the problems over "ME" arise from the well known difficulty of attributing names and qualities of the whole to a part, and of the part to a whole- like synecdoche, but different. There is then the further problem of imagining that the taxonomic choices one makes reflect discoveries about the world rather than arbitrary choices, which could have been different.
There were a number of epidemics caused either by a virus, a group of viruses, or different viruses causing a similar spectrum of symptoms, of either acute or insidious onset, some involving paresis, some not. To these epidemics in general was ascribed the name benign myalgic encephalomyelitis, without distinguishing what aspect of the illness the name was ascribed to. These epidemics would have been of historic interest only had not some of those affected continued to suffer from a chronic relapsing and remitting condition.
From the spectrum of symptoms Ramsay selected some as being characteristic, amongst them the chronic relapsing and remitting feature, others might disagree with his choice, and used the same name to describe his selection. Ramsay also seems to have broadened the possibilities as to causation.
The name has subsequently been applied by others to a broader range of symptoms. This does not tell us anything about the world, only about selected categories.
One might conclude that although the epidemic cases were acute they did give rise to cases of the chronic conditions and should not be a matter of indifference.
I should make it clear that the title of this thread, "Were historic "ME" outbreaks really ME?" was not selected by me. Were I to ask such a question, I would not have used the word "really", even in inverted commas, and would have put the inverted commas around the other ME-the original description having priority. However the answer to the question might be "it all depends what you mean.....by "were"".
Everyone within the epidemic outbreaks and suffering symptoms within the terms of the description, for which chronicity was not a necessary element, had ME. Of those only a proportion, we do not know what proportion, had the chronic illness "ME" as subsequently and variously described. Many of those currently with "ME" did not have ME.
This is not irrelevant. The epidemic cases will almost certainly be a significant part of one of the sub-groups which will emerge, and the relapsing and remitting nature, of at least the early stages, of that form of the illness should offer clues as to what might, and what might not, be relevant.
But that is only an opinion
