Comment on: Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalitis. [Br J Gen Pract. 2002]
In previous correspondence,1 I challenged the trivialisation of chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), and the generalisation and speculation in an editorial on chronic fatigue.2 The authors dismissed my arguments as, in their opinion, I had not demonstrated that I ‘was prepared and able accurately to read and interpret a scientific article’.3 I consider this remark to be unfair and unjustified.
I shall discuss each of their points in turn. First, they denied that by referring to the illness as ‘fatigue or its synonyms’, they were trivialising ‘the suffering of patients with PUPS (persistent unexplained physical symptoms)’. The authors must be aware of the controversy surrounding the word ‘fatigue’. As one affected surgeon wrote: ‘there is nothing in your experience in medical school, residency, or practice with its gruelling hours and sleep deprivation that even approaches the fatigue you feel with this illness. Fatigue is the most pathetically inadequate term’.4 Other writers on the subject recognise this, which is probably why most tend to describe the main symptom as profound, debilitating or disabling fatigue. But this was not the case here. The authors clearly equated CFS with (normal) tiredness and chronic fatigue. Elsewhere, they referred to ‘commonplace symptoms’ and in their response, again wrote about ‘fatigue and its synonyms’
You can read the full comment here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314477/pdf/12528593.pdf
Source: Goudsmit E. Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME. Br J Gen Pract. 2002 Dec;52(485):1023-4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1314477/pdf/12528593.pdf