Chronic Fatigue Virus Link No More

This post will probably rub some tired people the wrong way, but...well, I've been waiting a long time to write it. I guess it's time. It has to do with chronic fatigue, and the attempts to turn it into a disease, with it's own microorganistic causation, and probably a slew of drugs and support groups. Evidence to the affirmative has been lacking, however, and the latest happenings has a prestigious medical journal retracting a controversial 2009 report that linked chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) to a virus. Sorry folks.

In an unusual move, the journal Science is taking the retraction step on its own. Normally, authors retract their own research papers when serious problems arise after publication, but according to the scientific publication, the authors are having trouble agreeing on the wording of their statement. A retraction signed by all the authors "is unlikely to be forthcoming," said the journal.

Chronic fatigue syndrome is characterized by severe fatigue for at least six months, impaired memory and other symptoms.
The 2009 paper, from scientists at the Whittemore Peterson Institute in Reno, Nev., the Cleveland Clinic and the National Cancer Institute, reported finding a virus called XMRV in blood cells of some patients with chronic fatigue syndrome. That raised hope that a cause of the mysterious illness had been found, although other viral suspects, like Epstein-Barr virus (EBV) over the years had proven to be false leads.

Follow up studies, however, failed to show a link, leading Science magazine to publish two reports last May suggesting the original finding was due to lab contamination. Doh! In September, the authors retracted some of the data, citing contamination. Science said the authors had also acknowledged omitting important information about the study's procedures in an illustration of some lab results.

Sigh...as much as I sympathize with people feeling really, really tired (I know, I know...), I think the problem in chronic fatigue is psychosomatic. Now there's often a misunderstanding with this term--psychosomatic does not mean that something is simply a figment of the imagination, that it doesn't exist.  On the contrary, the physical condition exists, but it is the manifestation of many components including social, psychological and behavioral factors. And I am confident that this is the case with CFS.

I believe that CFS is rooted in a generalized lack of purpose in those exhibiting signs and symptoms of chronic fatigue. Whoa! I know, many reading this are going to flip. How dare I blame the victim? No blame here, just an observation. I have had numerous clients in my West Hollywood chiropractic clinic demonstrate signs and symptoms of CFS, and my observation is that most of these people were not working, they had nothing inspiring them, and their drives were stuck in survival mode--I know I'd be fatigued with life under those circumstances too.

Well...perhaps these people had no drive or inspiration, and lacked work because they were suffering from unusual fatigue. I doubt it. Anecdotally speaking, I had lived a purposeless life for a short period during my youth. I slept for long hours, was tired all the time, my body ached, and I was certain there was something wrong with me physically. But it wasn't until I made decisions from my heart as to what I wanted my life to be about that I developed a renewed vigor. Today, I rarely sleep longer than six hours, and my energy levels are booming.

I realize that my experiences do not a scientific study make. But they shape my beliefs, and that along with the failure to find any infectious agent or other solitary cause for that matter, make it easy for me to hold my convictions. Further, if the illness is in fact a medical condition, in the sense that it requires physical or chemical treatment, then exercise and psychotherapy seem to be the most effective treatments available so far. Not rocket science. And all this goes for fibromyalgia too.

Listen, I know when people are in a rut--when they aren't in touch with their heart's drive, their life's purpose--it can be very fatiguing. I've lived it. But the answer will never be in medicalizing the condition. Finding purpose in one's life will do much more for this condition than searching for viruses that aren't there. Surely, a virus can be found...we have many to choose from, as they permeate our world, but is that really it--doubtful. Sorry to shatter the illusion.

Hx ADD: The Best With What They Had

Welcome me back from the dead, with a long awaited followup on ADD.  As I've threatened, I'm going to touch on several aspects of ADD in the next few days, starting here with a brief history of the "disorder".

ADHD was first classified in the 18th century by Scottish-born physician and author, Sir Alexander Crichton.  He described what seemed to be a mental state of inattentiveness that he called "mental restlessness".

His words: "When born with a person it becomes evident at a very early period of life, and has a very bad effect, inasmuch as it renders him incapable of attending with constancy to any one object of education. But it seldom is in so great a degree as totally to impede all instruction; and what is very fortunate, it is generally diminished with age." (emphasis mine)

He suggested that children afflicted with this restlessness, or fidgets, should obtain special education and that it was apparent that these children could not focus no matter how hard they tried.  Again his words: "Every public teacher must have observed that there are many to whom the dryness and difficulties of the Latin and Greek grammars are so disgusting that neither the terrors of the rod, nor the indulgence of kind intreaty can cause them to give their attention to them."

Yeah, no kidding.  And that's a disorder?

The classification continued to grow in the twentieth century, as one British pediatrician gave a series of lectures to the Royal College of Physicians in London under the name "Goulstonian lectures" on 'some abnormal psychical conditions in children.' The doctor's name was Sir George Frederick Still.

Dr. Still described 43 children that were considered to have serious problems with "sustained attention and self-regulation, who were often aggressive, defiant, resistant to discipline, excessively emotional or passionate, which showed little inhibitory volition, had serious problems with sustained attention and could not learn from the consequences of their actions; though their intellect was normal."

He further described these children as having a certain "moral defect" without a general impairment of intellect.   Make note, he was describing Moral Control--a "control of action in conformity with the idea of the good of all."

Still proposed a biological predisposition to this behavioral condition that was probably hereditary in some children and the result of pre- or postnatal injury in others.  Keep that in mind--it will come up later.

ADHD was not the original term given to this condition.  In fact, it has had several in its long history including "minimal brain damage", "minimal brain dysfunction", "minimal brain disorder", "learning/behavioral disabilities" "hyperactivity", and the aforementioned "Defect of Moral Control."  ADHD wasn't used until the mid-20th century, and the definition has grown to such a degree that now there exist three subcategories, one of which is the disorder without hyperactivity.  In fact, the entire description of ADHD--which has been labeled one of the "best researched disorders" in all of medicine--has changed so often that it is a wonder the current definition has stayed intact for the last sixteen years (concomitant drug-therapies have a way of doing that)

Looking at the history of ADD, it is easy to knee-jerk a "but of course it's a disorder" reaction out of most people.  I mean, come on--how could anybody doubt modern science?  Except for one problem--the science doesn't show all that much (for a later post).  Oh, no doubt, children...er, people...have a difficulty focusing at various moments or during certain activities, particularly those "to whom the dryness and difficulties of the Latin and Greek grammars are so disgusting."  No kidding.

Categorizing this normal functioning of the human brain a disorder was understandable during a period when "conformity with the idea of the good of all," was more than a virtue...it was a freakin' law whether in the books or not.  Any behavior considered morally defect might lead one into an insane asylum, or even subject to a number of "medical treatments" that today we consider barbaric (think lobotomy).

I, in no way, wish to suggest a conspiracy of sorts...but modern science did what it could with the information it had available.  And at the time, it was best to consider any deviation from "normal" behavior a disorder.

But today we know better.  Many people have different ways of learning.  Some are labeled with one learning disability or another.  Perhaps the so-called learning disabled just have different processing styles.  That was my experience working with learning disabled kids at UC Berkeley.  Most came from Montessori schools where individual or self-directed learning is emphasized.  Once these kids came into the stringent learning models that predominate in our educational system, they began failing.  These kids were geniuses--they just needed different methods to help process material.

One reason ADD has had such a long history, I believe, is because it is a normal physiological variant.  Clearly, as the pioneers in the classification of this disorder pointed out, there is usually no deficit in intelligence.  No kidding.  From personal experience, I assure you I could have been labeled ADHD at many points in my education, but they weren't doling out the drugs at that time the way they are now.

Further, despite being one of the "best researched disorders," to date, no clear solution has been found to combat this disorder that afflicts "3% to 5% of children globally."  Why?  Because we all have an attention deficit when we are not inspired by something we are forced to sit through.  They will never find the chemical cause because like depression, chemical changes are the result of a brain state, NOT the cause.

Yes, the experts had to propose a biological cause, because they could find no mental construct that explained the disorder beyond a "Defect in Moral Conduct."  Whereas sodomy could be pinned on sexual deviancy, and thievery on a criminal defect, lack of attention had to be biological.

Conformity to societal norms was then, as it still is now, of the highest tenor (debate someone on this issue to get my point), and as such, the inability to do so in the educational structure was a defect without defense.  It was unfathomable that it might be a defect in the structure itself.  More to come.

Flu Shots: Government's Big Lie

Governments don't lie, do they? Nah. Political parties lie, right? Especially the one you disagree with--they always lie. And your party never lies, right? Governments don't lie, no way.

Well, one lie hard to pass off for very long is the scientific lie. One such lie is about the efficacy of the flu vaccine. This is one of my staunchest issues, and I'll never shut up about it: Flu shots are bull turds!

A recent interview with prestigious epidemiologist and flu-vaccine researcher for the Cochrane Collaboration in Britain, Tom Jefferson uncovers exactly why we must question the utility of the flu vaccine (not to be confused with swine flu or H1N1 vaccine), despite the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) new public health campaign in the U.S. encouraging vulnerable patients--particularly the elderly--to "protect yourself and the ones you love against flu: GET VACCINATED!"

According to Mr. Jefferson, when a systematic review of ALL studies on the efficacy of flu vaccines was conducted, the findings were inconclusive. In other words, they didn't show effectiveness or non-effectiveness one way or the other. The governments of the U.S., Britain, Australia and Germany, however, as well as the World Health Organization (WHO) use a "citation bias" when evaluating flu vaccines, which essentially means they cite studies that agree with their viewpoint, and ignore (or fail to cite) studies that show no effect or disagree with their agenda. What do you know? Keep that in mind Global Warmers.

This isn't news to me as I've pointed out in several posts(here, here, here, here, and here) the use of selective science. This method of subjective objectivity has been running rampant in today's science, particularly the health sciences. It's shameful, and buyer beware: You better check many sources when trying to get the truth these days.

He goes on to say that bigger and better studies on flu vaccinations are needed, but somehow governments are largely ignoring this. An "extraordinary situation," Mr. Jefferson calls it. Not if you understand modern politics, sir.

He believes, as I do, that effective and provable methods for preventing the spread of flu are simple hygienic practices like hand-washing, wearing gloves and masks (a little weird but effective), and distancing oneself from infected people. Duh! And here's one of my own, not mentioned by Mr. Jefferson: How about just catching the flu? I don't mean actively seek it out, but being ill has its benefits, you know.

Too avant-garde? OK, then just try washing your your hands. Mr. Jefferson states,

"There is solid evidence that [hygienic practices] work against all [flu viruses], not just specific strains [unlike the flu vaccine, as it is designed]. They are culturally acceptable and cheap, and they reduce transmission rates of other viruses too. A great American called Stephen Luby of the CDC has published a study from Karachi, Pakistan, that found that physical interventions are lifesavers. He should receive a Nobel Prize for his work, but I'm sure he never will.

I'm sure he will not, either--no money in simple hygiene. But oodles in useless vaccines.

Mr. Jefferson concludes that he is not antivaccination (and neither am I); he has five children, all of them vaccinated. As he says, childhood vaccines have strong evidence to back up their effectiveness, unlike the annual flu shot. "I am not antivaccine. I am anti–poor evidence," he says.

Bravo! Nothing more refreshing than a scientist dedicated to the truth. Sounds weird, I know, since science is the investigation of truths of the universe. But that's the way it goes when politics get involved in any endeavor. When it comes to your health, you better find the truth for yourself, because you won't get it from the government. Governments lie.

The Downfall of Science

Well, I never thought I'd say this, but, science is becoming a sham. Yup, you heard me right: the "study of truth" is becoming an oxymoron. Hard to swallow since it's the world in which I've been trained, as well as the world that I love.

Sad but true. Science, like most things that are marketable, is becoming controlled by economics. And whenever money is involved, big money that is, corruption inevitably follows. I've already reported in an earlier post of the practice of selective publishing by the antidepressant pharmaceutical industry, but check out the latest scandal: A recent report has disclosed hidden financing from the tobacco industry in a study that showed lung scans to help save smokers from cancer. Yikes! According to the report, this finding, "has shocked the research community and raised fresh concern about industry influence in important science."

Although researchers insist that the funding from the parent company of a big tobacco firm had "no control or influence over the research", most experts agree that public trust is compromised when hidden research money has industry ties. No kidding. It may be true that the tobacco company had no influence or control over the results, but when a group is at least partially responsible for researchers paychecks, it might be just a little tempting to make results look favorable, both for extending the study (means longer pay period) and for future funding (security). Further, money paid to researchers by tobacco companies often lead to their testimonies against screening in class action lawsuits which favor the tobacco companies. According to Dr. John Niederhuber, director of the National Cancer Institute (NCI), scientists must maintain the trust of patients in research studies, and "any breach of that trust is not simply disappointing but, I believe, unacceptable."

The original study, published in the medical journal JAMA, was also partially financed by the National Cancer Institute. Both groups spoke out against the financial relationship between the study and the tobacco company. According to NCI chief medical officer, Dr. Otis Brawley, the society would not have contributed to the study if it knew "Big Tobacco" was co-funding the work. And Dr. Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, stated that she would not have published the paper had she known of the relationship.

Well, as I stated at the beginning, science backed by big business has a vested interest to veer from the truth. Whether or not CT lung scans actually save lives is not the point here. It's that if we are to learn the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, in matters of the universe, it's much better to secure financing from institutions that have no vested interest in the outcomes. Unfortunately, that's just not the world we live in.