This was a difficult post to write as I was unsure whether or not to ignore such ignorant writing concerning ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis), depriving it of the oxygen of publicity, or to confront the idiocy. Such is the level of scientific illiteracy displayed in the book, ‘Exhaustion, A History’ by Anna Katharina Schaffner, I felt I had no choice but to adopt the latter option. Schaffner is another supporter of the BPS (biopsychosocial) model and, given the number of times they are mentioned, a keen admirer of both Sir Simon Wessely and professor Edward Shorter. Concerning the title, I’m not sure about the age of exhaustion but given such books are able to be published and that a large proportion of US citizens believe Donald Trump is a viable presidential candidate, I believe the age of ignorance would be a more accurate description. Reading through her monograph it is notable how often tenuous supposition is presented as fact. Her thesis is ‘interesting’, it’s certainly the first time I’ve been accused of suffering from ‘cultural pessimism’, although as an example of the inane waffle ME sufferers have to endure from the ignorati it’s hard to better.
Fundamentally, I take issue with the argument that provides the basis for her book, that modern society is overwhelmed by an, ‘epidemic of exhaustion’. I doubt this supposed epidemic is the main topic of conversation amongst members of the public or the political classes. Her comprehension of history is limited – she believes the recent banking crises are ‘unprecedented in their severity and scale.’ The South Sea Bubble, the economic problems in Weimar Germany, the economic Depression of the 1930s, suggest otherwise. Of course she has to claim the modern world is unique in the crises facing humanity in order to justify her argument. Her poor scientific understanding, particularly apparent in her chapter on ME, is revealed in statements including ‘the ozone layer is shrinking at an alarming rate’ (actually it’s recovering1). Her inability to differentiate between carbon monoxide and carbon dioxide is revealing ‘carbon monoxide emissions are still high’, no doubt they are but she means carbon dioxide (CO2‘s a direct greenhouse gas, CO is not2). Call me pedantic but an inability to understand basic science casts doubt on her ability to engage in discussion of a disease as complex as ME.
Her introduction outlines various issues confronting inhabitants of the modern world, ‘these serious social, political and environmental concerns, all of which centre around the idea of exhaustion.’ Do they? It’s a hypothesis but not one supported by much evidence; it’s certainly the first time I’ve read that Global Warming is a consequence of exhaustion. Nor is the world today unique in the various problems humanity is experiencing. Between a third and a half of the population of Europe was wiped out by bubonic plague in the mid 14th century, the 20th century saw two global conflicts unprecedented in scale resulting in the deaths of millions, and post World War II humanity had to endure the ever present threat of nuclear conflict. Reading history may be an arduous endeavour but it might help Dr Schaffner put humanity’s current difficulties in context.
Schaffner enjoys quoting Edward Shorter, an unpleasant historian who counts a day without abusing ME sufferers as wasted and whose knowledge of the body’s physiological processes is limited. His psychosomatic model of disease is apparently ‘thought provoking’; personally, I’d say unscientific and abusive. Dr Schaffner trots out the ‘fashionable diseases’ line, so beloved of Wessely and co., of which ME apparently is one (whatever else I can’t accuse her of originality ‘illness belief’ also rears its ugly head), carefully working her way through all the BPS model proponents’ favourite tropes. ME is not a fashionable illness, its diagnosis leaves a sufferer open to a plethora of abuse from various sectors of society, including journalists and medical personnel. I couldn’t think of a disease less fashionable.
She fails to distinguish between CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome), ME and post-viral fatigue. This conflation is neither helpful nor accurate but something those with ME have come to expect. A ‘perceived sense of effort’ is stated as one of our symptoms, there you go folks it’s just what you perceive. Schaffner also highlights the controversy surrounding ME. To be clear, any controversy surrounding ME is due to the likes of Wessely, Shorter and herself, a group who for various reasons have decided to hijack a neurological condition (classified by the World Health Organisation since 1969) for their own ends. Any biomedical evidence is to be ignored so that their psychogenic hypotheses can continue to be promoted, never mind that this leaves a seriously ill group of sufferers neglected and untreated, their lives destroyed by a disease the medical profession refuses to take seriously.
Dr Schaffner no doubt believes she is being balanced in her monograph but the constant quoting of Shorter and Wessely, whose psychogenic model she appears to have absorbed uncritically while failing to acknowledge or mention a single biomedical researcher, suggests otherwise. Indeed, while academics are frequently quoted to support the psychosomatic disease model, support for the biomedical model is placed on the shoulders of sufferers, including Nasim Jafry3, whose book is quoted at length in a condescending and dismissive fashion, implying a traumatic event played a role in Jafry’s illness (ME sufferers comprise a diverse community, some experienced traumatic events, some did not, to suggest it plays any role in the illness is mere conjecture). Needless to say, the numerous researchers investigating the physiological basis of ME are not deemed worthy of mention.
It is not ironic (as she states) that Simon Wessely has become a hated figure, he built his career on promoting his view that ME is a non-disease, contradicts himself constantly and makes ludicrous statements suggesting he feels safer in Afghanistan than in the UK, so threatened does he feel by ME patients. Millions of sufferers worldwide lack any effective treatment due to Wessely and his acolytes spending decades promoting ineffective therapies like CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy) and GET (graded exercise therapy), while ignoring the biological basis of ME. This is not a minor issue; sufferers have died and continue to do so. Many patients do not show significant improvement following CBT or GET, and it is dishonest of Schaffner to say so, ‘the evidence so far supports this model’, it does not as the thoroughly debunked PACE trial proved conclusively.
The Shorter view, that we’re all inadequates jumping on the ME bandwagon to help deal with our pathetic existence, which she quotes at great length, ignores the fact that many, including one member of UttingWolffSpouts, struggled for years, even decades with symptoms they did not understand and for which they did not have a diagnosis, never having heard of ME or CFS. These patients saw psychiatrists and underwent CBT and GET because they were prepared to try anything to get well. Unfortunately, in the vast majority of cases, these treatments do not work. It is odd and illogical to accuse ME sufferers of not wanting to get well by ‘refusing’ psychiatric treatments that have been debunked but deride them for their efforts to get better in whichever way they can. Candida is not a fad but a fungal infection that has scientifically verifiable effects on people’s health. As ME sufferers demonstrate dysfunctional immune responses, attempting to ameliorate symptoms caused by this dysfunction rather than investing time and energy in ineffective talking therapies makes perfect sense. Dr Schaffner pretends to be objective but her bias towards an obsolete psychiatric paradigm that has its roots in ‘theories’ about shrivelling wombs could not be more apparent.
Shorter is a historian, and makes a frequent show of demonstrating his scientific illiteracy. I find it fascinating that the likes of Shorter and Schaffner (who studied General and Comparative Literature) so readily expose their ignorance of basic scientific contexts. I studied for a BSc in the Natural Sciences and an MSc in Medicinal Chemistry, because science, especially molecular biology, fascinates me. I have no inclination to write a monologue in the field of Comparative Literature and were I to do so, it would be very, very bad. ME patients do not disrespect medical expertise, I thoroughly respect the consultant gastroenterologist who diagnosed me and the various other medical experts who try to understand and treat my disease, I do not however respect a group of psychiatrists who suggest I’m an inadequate malingerer. The perpetual need for certain literature graduates to dabble in science where the only thing that shines is their scientific illiteracy is worthy of investigation in itself.
It is when Schaffner writes about a ‘bacterial-infection model’ (possibly she means germ theory but she’s quoting from a book I have not read so I must plead ignorance) that she exposes her breathtaking level of ignorance re infectious disease. Schaffner mentions malaria, tuberculosis, ulcers and gastritis to support her claim that ‘psychological factors play a major role in whether the body is able to fight off these bacteria’: nothing in that sentence is true
i) Malaria is not a bacteria, it is caused by several species of the protozoan parasite Plasmodia.
ii) Numerous factors increase a person’s risk of developing active TB, including a suppressed immune response, often due to HIV infection, diabetes, malnutrition and smoking, psychological factors do not play a major role.
iii) Concerning peptic and duodenal ulcers, the majority of which are caused by Helicobacter pylori infection, stress plays a role in susceptibility to ulcer formation by those infected with the bacterium via stress-induced effects on the stomach, an elucidated physiological process (stress suppresses stomach activity, HCl secretion and blood flow to the stomach wall are reduced – the mucous membrane thins enabling its perforation by H. pylori and ulcer formation occurs)4.
Everybody’s immune system is unique and, if the previously mentioned factors remain constant, will respond to infection in its own way, which is why some of those exposed to TB develop the active disease while most do not. Her argument is reminiscent of the suggestion that a positive mental attitude increases a person’s chances of surviving cancer, a claim that has been disproved but is still promoted by the likes of Schaffner.
Given her contempt for diseases caused by pathogenic bacteria, I do wonder if Dr Schaffner uses antibiotics when suffering from a severe bacterial infection, presumably not, instead ensuring she has the correct psychological attitude to ward off such irritating germs. If only she’d been available in the 14th century, so many lives could have been saved. Bubonic plague, gonorrhoea, syphilis, diphtheria, pertussis, anthrax, so many diseases, so much suffering and death, all of which could have been avoided if our ancestors had the sense and wisdom to acknowledge those crucial psychological factors which determined whether or not they became ill. A clear sign of Schaffner’s confusion and muddled thinking is her aforementioned use of malaria and TB, two diseases that predominantly affect the poorest inhabitants of our planet, to support her thesis. Given the latter is based on ME being a construct of Western society and our general inability to deal with the stresses of the modern world, it’s surprising she utilises these ailments, barely present in most wealthy nations, to support her argument.
Schaffner regurgitates another favourite of supporters of the psychogenic disease model, questioning why ME sufferers become so upset with a psychiatric diagnosis. Many patients are upset about a psychiatric diagnosis for ME because ME is not a psychiatric condition. Cancer or Parkinson’s disease patients, even someone suffering from influenza, would not be happy with a psychiatric diagnosis either; Schaffner is being wilfully disingenuous and abusive here. Schaffner’s claim that CFS ‘preoccupied the cultural imagination’ in the latter part of the 20th century is another fallacy, HIV/AIDS possibly, CFS, no. I’m not convinced media attention has shifted to other exhaustion syndromes either (I must make clear I do not believe ME is an exhaustion syndrome) but her book is so full of unsupported, unjustifiable statements one could go on ad infinitum.
There is no other chronic and debilitating condition for which sufferers are continually told their illness and symptoms are imagined. I’m confident that if MS patients were told their disease did not exist (of course they once were) and only required a course of CBT for a cure, they would also be angry towards the medical professional that propounded such beliefs. Schaffner is not original, she follows a long, undistinguished line of cod philosophers who think they can explain away chronic illness in a non-scientific fashion, and why not? Real science is hard; molecular biology is hard, signalling pathways are complex as is the immune system. Why waste time and energy studying this when you can claim it is all imagined, after all, you have a good chance of gaining a knighthood without any of the hard work.
3) Nasim Jafry (2008). ‘The State of ME’, The Friday Project, London
4) Ash, P et al. (2006). ‘Life’s Challenges’, The Open University.
©2016, Geoffrey Jones, All Rights Reserved.
Excellent post! Thank you!
Everyone please write a review of the book on Amazon. May I suggest rating it one-star? Doesn’t need to be a long review, only a sentence. Here are links to the book on the various Amazon sites (just copy and paste from your first review). And below that is the text from my review.
Yet another literature scholar writing a book on medicine and infectious disease. She ignores or misinterprets the science like clockwork, claiming that such organic diseases as ME(“CFS”) are psychological, that no evidence of physical disease has been found. As the Institute of Medicine, the world’s foremost medical authority, said last year after a $1M review of all the science meeting strict Evidence-Based standards on the disease, “ME/CFS is clearly a physical, and not a psychological or psychiatric, condition.”
For an excellent review of the book and its flaws please google “uttingwolffspouts and age of ignorance” (Amazon does not let me post links, sorry).
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thank you, Justin. Geoff and I are both pretty knackered now and will think about further actions tomorrow, including writing to Schaffner directly. In the meantime, here’s my review on Amazon. https://www.amazon.co.uk/review/R3H20LTA183V90/ref=pe_1572281_66412651_cm_rv_eml_rv0_rv
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cogent and perspicuous, thankyou for speaking for those of us that have lost our former abilities. I hope you find the energy to challenge Schaffner directly, though I doubt she will be interested in engaging in dialogue with a delusional, lying, culturally pessimistic malingerer from the M.E community.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is excellent. As you can imagine, I have more to say on Schaffner’s chapter, which I intend to blog at some point. Just wanted to add to the lack of science: she inexplicably describes the virus that made me/my fictional character Helen horribly ill in the 1980s as the ‘rare Coxsackie B4 virus’. Coxsackieviruses are enteroviruses and are a common cause of illness in children and adults. I had not heard of Coxsackie when I was diagnosed, but that does make it a rare illness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
*sorry, meant does NOT make it a rare virus.
Thanks Nasim. I almost wrote about this exact point as Coxsackie B4 was the virus responsible for my initial infection, is linked to Type 1 diabetes and is not especially rare but such a comment is typical of Schaffner’s ignorant approach to all matters scientific.
There was an actual outbreak of CoxsackieB4 in west of Scotland which I describe in my novel, Schaffner seems to have missed this, just as she seems to have missed my/Helen’s neurology diagnosis – the hell and heartbreak of being diagnosed with a dreadful neuroimmune illness aged 20 takes up almost third of the book, as do the medical therapies, albeit experimental (all of which I underwent). But Schaffner really does not wish to concern herself with details of real and fictional neurologists diagnosing ME in 1980s, she wants really to get to the main task of judging Helen/myself for daring to challenge the authority of Wessely. Literary critic as judge and jury. Hilarious and impertinent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I left a comment on Amazon, under your “review.” You have written a powerful critique of this nasty book.
Reblogged this on Short Blogs for the Distracted……… and commented:
Great blog as every….
“I couldn’t think of a disease less fashionable.”
Yup. M.E. patients are certainly at the bottom of the heap, right next to alcoholics, tobacco users, IV drug users, poor people, and everybody else considered to be a Useless Eater.
Thank you for writing this. It gives me hope for the future that there are people standing up for all us living every day with this horrible debilitating disease. I have a close relative who is an NLP practitioner. Her ignorant view is that I enjoy being ill and I don’t want to get better because I refuse to put myself through her “therapies”.
I hope, for your sake, that you can avoid such ableism as much as possible. It’s not conducive to our wellbeing to be near disability denying people, even if they seem ‘alright’ otherwise.
I’ve found this very interesting, I suspect I suffer with ME but no matter how many times I go to the doctors with various symptoms, often same ones, I come out with either no answer at all, that I’m suffering with a virus that will go soon, or an offering of the same old blood tests. I’ve given up, I just try to manage each day as it comes. To say that it is a neurological disorder is ridiculous, I suffer with very low vit D- which I’m sure is part of it- and I know I can’t think that to happen. The fact every time I have bloods taken shows up unexplained inflammation, is definitely not in my head. I’ll review the book, thanks for this.
Dear Kerry, so sorry to hear this. It sounds as if you’re experiencing the same ordeal as so many other ME sufferers, i.e. being disbelieved and without diagnosis for years while struggling through life and pretending to be ‘normal’.ME is officially classed as a neurological illness, which it most likely is (some say neuro-immune because they think it better describes the immunological problems we suffer as well as the neurological symptoms). It certainly isn’t a mental disorder that can be ‘cured’ by a bit of CBT or GET, and the PACE trial has recently been utterly discredited, as you are probably aware? You could contact Invest in ME (IiME) or the ME Association and order their information leaflets as well as advice as to sympathetic doctors in your area. There is a list that can be obtained if you email them. I hope you receive help soon. Best wishes, Claudia PS: Just in case you are not familiar with the ICC criteria for diagnosis of ME, I’m attaching them here. You may want to show them to your GP, this document is educational and well-researched. http://www.meadvocacy.org/the_international_consensus_criteria_what_is_it_do_i_fit_the_criteria
Excellent as usual. Thank you!
That was written last year, I think, in response to O’Sullivan’s book release. We then had to relive it when she was awarded the Wellcome Prize for her dreadful drivel. Thanks for commenting, Elaine, we hope you’re awap and wish you a healthier 2017. Not sure what to wish people these days for fear of sounding cynical.