Re:Biomarker for chronic fatigue syndrome identified
by GordonS on Sunday May 05, 2019 @04:19PM
(#19834818)
> viral infections (which are physiologically stressful)
There is evidence relating to viral infections, yes. But is it really necessary to refer to such infections being "physiologically stressful"? I just don't see the relevance of that.
> Here on HN there is myself and tomhoward for starters, and I know lots of other patients who have also recovered
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply recovery wasn't possible, but re-reading my comment I can see how it might have come across that way.
Re:Biomarker for chronic fatigue syndrome identified
by cpncrunch on Sunday May 05, 2019 @07:39PM
(#19835777)
>But is it really necessary to refer to such infections being "physiologically stressful"? I just don't see the relevance of that.
Viral infections activate the HPA axis...that is what is meant by "physiologically stressful". See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1224723/
The relevance is that stress seems to be the common factor as a trigger, and the stress system seems to be dysfunctional in CFS.
Re:Biomarker for chronic fatigue syndrome identified
by AnimalMuppet on Monday May 06, 2019 @03:50PM
(#19843082)
How did you recover? (Not an academic question. My wife has CFS.)
At least 4 studies that looked at it all found that it was triggered by stress or viral infection. If you're aware of any other contrary evidence, I'm interested.
>Unfortunately I don't know any CFS patients that have recovered, or even gone into remission; for everyone I know, it's been a chronic condition.
Here on HN there is myself and tomhoward for starters, and I know lots of other patients who have also recovered. We tend not to post too much in CFS forums, though, due to the negativity and hostility towards recovered patients.