Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Is ‘Unambiguously Biological’

In 2016, years before long COVID was a thing, the US National Institutes of Health, the largest single public funder of medical research in the world, launched a study into a long-neglected and puzzling condition: chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), also known as myalgic encephalomyelitis, or ME/CFS.

Eight years later, the results of that study are finally out. In one of the most thorough investigations to date, researchers took a deep dive into a small group of 17 people who developed ME/CFS after an infection and found distinct biological differences compared to 21 healthy controls.

“Overall, what we show is that ME/CFS is unambiguously biological, with multiple organ systems affected,” neurologist Avindra Nath, lead researcher of the study and clinical director of NIH’s National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS), said in an interview with JAMA.

For decades, many doctors had dismissed ME/CFS as a psychosomatic condition that was ‘all in patients’ heads’. Now there is little doubt: a host of biological changes underpin ME/CFS. “It’s a systemic disease,” Nath continued, “and the people living with it deserve to have their experiences taken seriously.”

In a week of extensive tests, study participants underwent brain scans, sleep studies, muscle strength and cognitive performance tests, skin and muscle biopsies, blood tests, and gut microbiome and spinal fluid analyses. Participants were also put on a controlled diet and spent time in metabolic chambers, where their energy and nutrient consumption was measured under stable conditions.

Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method

PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. 

Trackback from your site.

Comments (1)

  • Avatar

    Howdy

    |

    “a psychosomatic condition that was ‘all in patients’ heads’.”
    Yes I’ve heard the claim before on other matters. It usually appears that ‘the doctor’ sees the patient as not having a clue about themselves, or is swinging the lead, while the establishment chooses to ignore it as it is not a visibly proven ailment, thus the support is denied.

    I think it relates to lack of trust in people’s own intelligence, or their honesty – fancy that…

    Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via