Tag: gaslighting

ME/CFS and the emotional toll of persistent disbelief: from epistemic to affective injustice

Abstract:

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS) is a debilitating chronic illness whose sufferers are frequently met with disbelief, stigmatization, and psychologization in both clinical and social contexts. Recent work has used the concept of “epistemic injustice” to illuminate important dimensions of this problem, especially the ways in which ME/CFS patients are discredited as knowers and denied adequate interpretive resources.

This paper argues that the harms associated with persistent disbelief in ME/CFS are not exhausted by this epistemic dimension. Drawing on recent philosophical work on affective injustice, I argue that persistent disbelief can also impair patients’ affective lives in distinctive and socially patterned ways.

More specifically, I argue that individuals with ME/CFS are burdened by unjust affective expectations, pressured into norm-conforming forms of emotional self-presentation, exposed to pathologizing and gaslighting interpretations of their affective experience, denied uptake for apt emotional responses, and exploited through forms of emotional labor and affective appropriation. Conceptualizing these harms in terms of affective injustice, I argue, helps to capture dimensions of marginalization that a focus on testimony and understanding alone leaves obscure.

The paper concludes by considering objections and drawing out implications for healthcare and philosophy of medicine.

Source: Walter S. ME/CFS and the emotional toll of persistent disbelief: from epistemic to affective injustice. Med Health Care Philos. 2026 Aug 14. doi: 10.1007/s11019-026-10388-6. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 42599643. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11019-026-10388-6 (Full text)

Reframing beliefs about their illness does not lead to recovery of tube-fed patients with very severe ME/CFS. Analysis of the BMJ article by Miller et al

Abstract:

The narrative which is presented by Miller et al. as new, has dominated the field of ME/CFS for the last 35 years. It has been tested by numerous studies and has been found to be ineffective and harmful, as concluded by for example NICE in 2021. Additionally, it does not lead to objective improvement and it has a negative instead of a positive effect on work and disability status.

What has happened over the last 35 years is that severely ill patients have been ridiculed, gaslit and ignored by the medical profession. These patients have lost hope in the part of the medical profession which has been instrumental in doing and promoting that. They have not lost hope to recover and they are all hoping to get effective pharmacological treatments sooner rather than later as changing their mindset does not lead to recovery. And if it does, then the diagnosis of ME/CFS was simply wrong.

Source: Vink, Mark and Vink-Niese, Friso, Reframing beliefs about their illness does not lead to recovery of tube-fed patients with very severe ME/CFS. Analysis of the BMJ article by Miller et al. (June 06, 2025). No., Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=5284667 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5284667 (Full text available as PDF file)

Factors associated with psychiatric outcomes and coping in Long COVID

Abstract:

The relationship between Long COVID (LC) and psychiatric outcomes, as well as factors associated with presence and absence of these, has so far been insufficiently studied. Here we evaluated psychiatric symptoms and coping among patients with LC and patients recovered from COVID-19 who participated in a large international survey. Given increased rates of psychiatric illness with chronic medical conditions and known immune-inflammatory contributors to psychiatric disease, we hypothesized that a subset, but not the entirety, of LC respondents may have comorbid psychopathology.

A substantial minority of both groups experienced suicidality, depression and anxiety symptoms, with these symptoms being more common in the LC group. LC respondents used more adaptive coping styles. Psychiatric outcomes in LC were associated with younger age, greater reductions in overall health, higher symptom severity, limitations to physical capability, lower income, financial hardship, psychiatric history, employment impact, male sex, men and non-binary gender, and negative experiences with medical professionals, family, friends, partners and employers.

Source: Re’em, Y., Stelson, E.A., Davis, H.E. et al. Factors associated with psychiatric outcomes and coping in Long COVID. Nat. Mental Health 1, 361–372 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44220-023-00064-6 https://www.nature.com/articles/s44220-023-00064-6 (Full text)

COVID-19, post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS, “long COVID”) and post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PCVS, “post-COVIDvac-syndrome”): Similarities and differences

Abstract:

Worldwide there have been over 760 million confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases, and over 13 billion COVID-19 vaccine doses have been administered as of April 2023, according to the World Health Organization. An infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) can lead to an acute disease, i.e. COVID-19, but also to a post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS, “long COVID”). Currently, the side effects of COVID-19 vaccines are increasingly being noted and studied.

Here, we summarise the currently available indications and discuss our conclusions that (i) these side effects have specific similarities and differences to acute COVID-19 and PACS, that (ii) a new term should be used to refer to these side effects (post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome, PCVS, colloquially “post-COVIDvac-syndrome”), and that (iii) there is a need to distinguish between acute COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (ACVS) and post-acute COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PACVS) – in analogy to acute COVID-19 and PACS (“long COVID”). Moreover, we address mixed forms of disease caused by natural SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination.

We explain why it is important for medical diagnosis, care and research to use the new terms (PCVS, ACVS and PACVS) in order to avoid confusion and misinterpretation of the underlying causes of disease and to enable optimal medical therapy. We do not recommend to use the term “Post-Vac-Syndrome” as it is imprecise. The article also serves to address the current problem of “medical gaslighting” in relation to PACS and PCVS by raising awareness among the medical professionals and supplying appropriate terminology for disease.

Source: Scholkmann F, May CA. COVID-19, post-acute COVID-19 syndrome (PACS, “long COVID”) and post-COVID-19 vaccination syndrome (PCVS, “post-COVIDvac-syndrome”): Similarities and differences. Pathol Res Pract. 2023 May 3;246:154497. doi: 10.1016/j.prp.2023.154497. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 37192595; PMCID: PMC10154064. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10154064/ (Full text)