Friday, November 18, 2011

Who are the real Quacks?

Who Are The Real Quack Doctors?
(excerpts)

... so called 'mainstream' doctors now appear to be the real quacks after all.

ME/CFS has been emerging over the last decade or two out of the realm of controversy and into one of pseudo-controversy. The trick in pseudo-controversies is (a) remain ignorant of progress (b) ensure that everyone else thinks there is nothing new.

Thus, pseudo-controversy advocated become the real quacks, whilst in reality, ME/CFS enters mainstream.  To be a strong pseudo-controversy advocate, it is forbidden to read any information that might not support your position, so matter how much of it there is. 
 
... I submit that it would be hard, tedious and mind boggling to have to read through some 4,500 peer reviewed papers in order to objectively consider the reality of ME/CFS, especially when you've never really paid attention to a genuine ME/CFS patient's complaints. Doctors are at their sharpest when they are in training for their specialist examinations.  After that, what they are inclined to read, essentially speaking, is what interests them or peeks their curiosity. And so the decline begins (usually).

To exclude ME/CFS from the medical school curriculum therefore, is tantamount to a criminal act against humanity.  Thousands and thousands of people will suffer.  There will be no other time in their medical training where students might get a chance to even hear about ME/CFS, let alone be moved towards studying it further, whilst their minds are fresh, young and absorbent.

... In experienced clinician's hands, the diagnosis Is NOT one of exclusion, as uninformed unread misguided skeptics (UUMS) would have us believe. The concept of a Functional Somatic Disorder, in my mind, is dead.

So, if it clinically walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, then in all probability, it is a duck (ME/CFS). The same applies to those so-called mainstream quack doctors who would have us ban ME/CFS research. They are UUMS's. Um!
Dr John L Whiting
Specialist in Infectious Diseases and Internal Medicine
Brisbane, Australia
* * *
Why is it that CFS patient support groups -- mostly laypersons -- can diagnose (or rule out) CFS with near 100% accuracy and doctors cannot?  Not because (as the doctors would have you believe) "it's too hard to diagnose", but because we LISTEN.  We know what we're looking for because we see it every day.  We're not fooled by the people who are tired because they ran a marathon or worked 100 hours a week.  We know to listen for "I woke up, brought in the newspaper from the front porch, and had to take a nap before I could read it."  We expect to hear stuff like "I drop things" and "I can't see clearly" and "I can't add 2+2 without a calculator", and not just "I cry all the time".  Fever, rash, joint pain, swollen glands ... those CFS symptoms don't appear in depression.
 
On the other hand, if all you're complaining about is "sad" and "tired", I'm going to steer you right to someone who will assess you for depression, because you're not talking about what I have. 
 

No comments: