Ellengoudsmit

I am a scientist, not an activist. I trained in CBT. You are not checking facts, which makes WP an unreliable source of info on CFS. You're shortsightedness and bias is of interest. The words and aims don't match. Ellengoudsmit (talk) 15:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your response indicates a serious lack of knowledge of the politics surrounding CFS. And reality. Neither I nor any other dissident has the power to change the attitude of editors of the likes of the Lancet etc. I used to work for the latter. There are sound references, and Fred Friedberg is one of the best psychologists researching this field, but this version doesn't cite them. CBT as an effective therapy for CFS? So the results of a scale which measures tiredness shows an improvement. Not for long they don't (Sharpe, Deale, etc). Also, the clinical studies (Quarmby, Akagi) don't support the results of the RCTs. It also interprets articles in a pro-psychiatric fashion, thus misleading readers. I do not believe that is WP's intention. This population is heterogeneous. There is no single disease and therefore almost certainly no single cause. Psychological or otherwise. If you want articles improved with the help of experts, I suggest that you show some respect and stop removing accurate information. If there were better references, I'd cite them. BTW, CBt is used solely to amend psychological problems. I am aware of the hype. If you have cancer, AIDS or MS, you will not be offered CBT unless you are at high risk of emotional distress or already have signs of severe emoptional distress. Psychologists cannot treat organic diseases; only the emotional complications. You're referring to spin. I am a scientist. I don't do spin. The cure rate for CFS using CBT is virtually nil. The Dutch and Belgian audists published last year both show it often causes as much harm as good. Only a few Dutch researchers have claimed a cure but have not proved it yet. Find me a psychologist who claims to cure CFS using CBT and I'll send him/her to the BPS for professional misconduct. Ellengoudsmit (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Pls read WP:MEDRS. Newsletters and web comments to BMJ are not reliable sources for a medical article like Chronic fatigue syndrome. RetroS1mone talk 13:58, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Point taken but as an article in the JCFS showed, many journals are biased towrds the CBT model and 'dissidents' can only publish in academic newsletters of professional organisations, e.g. Bulletin of the IACFS/ME, HPU etc. I read everything and care about accuracy. Sometimes, it's better to cite good sources in non-peer reviewed science publications than propaganda in the mainstream journals. The BPS has noted the PR lobby pro-CBT. We don't know why. But much of the info in the curretn version is biased. This disempowers readers.

For example, there is a lot of evidence of persistent infection in a subset. Are you expecting us, psychologists, to talk to a virus? Also, the interpretation of some of the literature is suspect. The recent Cochrane review on CBT noted the modest effect size for CBT. Perhaps my editor missed that bit. (Unsigned comment by Ellen Goudsmit?)

JCFS is not a med rs and WP shows the mainstream medical view not focus on a dissident view bc WP is for verifiable stuff. If you are a professional, may be you can do most by working and publishing on your ideas in better sources not trying to put unreliable sources on Wikipedia. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 14:24, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

O and about CBT talking to a virus, the literature says, CBT does not mean CFS is just psychological. CBT is used for organic conditions. Also "psychological" conditions can have organic causes. The psychological/organic thing is kind of dated and more every day. RetroS1mone talk 14:28, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, it is pointless arguing this more, and WP is not where to do it. WP is an encyclopedia not a place for activism. RetroS1mone talk 14:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection tag

Hi. Please don't remove the semiprotection notice from chronic fatigue syndrome. The notice is just that - a notification. Removing it doesn't un-protect the page - it's just there to notify people of the fact that the page is protected. The best approach is probably to discuss your concerns on the article talk page; edit-warring is usually not an effective approach here.

Expertise is always welcome at Wikipedia, but please understand that we're constrained by this site's content and conduct policies. One's expert say-so is not sufficient to insert an opinion, or to remove well-sourced material. Content needs to be verifiable in a reliable source, and we need to proportionately reflect expert opinion in the field. Often, the best use of expertise is to bring to light additional reliable sources that can be used for the article. MastCell ^Talk 18:07, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

That's what I tried to do, but failed. My sources are uber reliable. I wasn't speculating. Some of the references cited are from PubMed. That's the sad thing. And anyone who knows this field knows just how good a scientist Fred Friedberg is. His paper is 100% reliable. It's an excellent summary of the flaws in the CBT trials. The Bulletin is peer reviewed. The organisation cited is the group of world authorities on CFS. Wiki has an excellent page on effect size measures. We have them for CBT and GET. They add balance to the OTT interpretation of CBT trials. As a psychologist, I have nothing against CBT. Just against exaggeration.

That range of expert opinions is just not there. Deale et al (pro-CBT) has argued for more flexible programmes. The page doesn't refer to them. I offered reliable sources and it was undone. At least my colleagues recognise pacing and my role in developing it. Funny that you don't. Ellengoudsmit (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I haven't made any judgment on your role as a researcher. I'm simply asking that you take a look at this site's specific conduct and content policies. If you disagree with the coverage of chronic fatigue syndrome, there are a number of means to resolve that concern. I'm suggesting those that I've found to be effective on this particular site. That's all. MastCell ^Talk 18:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

There is already info on pacing in the article and the treatment sub-article (in fact I added some of it). And if I've mistakenly deleted any reliable sources, please let me know. I am not pro-CBT, I'm just looking for accuracy like you. --sciencewatcher (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

reminding about 3rr

Hi Ellengoudsmit, i just want to warn about WP:3RR, you made at least five reverts in 24 hrs on CFS as IP and your username. I know you are new user so just a warning!! Thx, RetroS1mone talk 03:48, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Signature

Hi Ellen. Please remember to add your name on talk pages by typing ~~~~; after your contribution; the system converts it to your username and date. Cheers, Sam Weller (talk) 13:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Point taken but given people always remove my information, I'm not concerned with this. You write something, add references and then someone who hasn't got a clue removes it. Dr. Ellen Goudsmit

The psychologisation of illness

Hi Ellen. A while ago I came across your article "The Psychologisation of Illness" hosted at http://freespace.virgin.net/david.axford/psy-algy.htm and I believe it would make a valuable addition to the CFS article(s). For citation purposes, can you please confirm that this is the same article as [Goudsmit E, Gadd R. The psychologisation of illness. Psychologist 1991;4: 449-53.] The Psychologist magazine's website is http://www.thepsychologist.org.uk but the online archive only goes back to 1998 and a search was unsuccessful. I'm not sure when I will get around to adding it to Wikipedia or where the best place would be to avoid an "edit-war", but thanks in advance. - Tekaphor (TALK) 01:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)