Tag Archives: CFS

An open letter to my worst doctors

To my first endocrinologist: Thank you for teaching me to do my homework.

When I came to you, it was after a lifetime of good health, during which the simple things that went wrong with me were easily diagnosed and treated by any medical school graduate. I wasn’t prepared for you. After a first examination, you told me I probably had Graves’ disease, which you did not bother explaining until I asked you to. You sent me for a nuclear medicine test that I later found out was unnecessary and may have harmed my eyes.

Worst of all, you over-prescribed me so much methimazole (a drug that inhibits the thyroid’s function) that I spent my first year as an interpreter in a complete state of zombiehood, minus the cravings for cerebellum. The dose that eventually got me back to healthy thyroid levels was one-twentieth of the amount you prescribed, and never subsequently altered.

During this frustrating and painful time, I found patient communities on the web — not just for support and commiseration, but also where experienced and knowledgeable patients were able to help me figure out exactly what was happening to me. I learned how to read my own labs, and why some of the numbers weren’t as useful as others. It was at this point I dropped you  and went in search of someone who wasn’t apathetic and incompetent.

So thank you for helping me learn how to find good information about medicine on the Internet, as well as connecting with other people in similar situations. Not only did I learn that yes, I can “fire” a bad doctor, but my mother learned from my experience and stood up to her own uncommunicative physician about a serious problem.

To my sports medicine doctor: Thank you for teaching me some qualities I won’t accept in a physician ever again.

When I came to you, for the first time in quite a while, it was perfectly understandable that you misdiagnosed me. I presented with nothing but joint stiffness so bad, I had to take time off work as I was unable to sign.

During my little sabbatical, I started to wonder whether the strange lacy red rash on my arms from a week ago or my subsequent bout of fever had anything to do with my joint problems. The first thing I did was type a few symptoms into the CDC’s search box, and the first result was human parvovirus. It matched exactly. I did a few more searches and all the information lined up.

When I brought this to you about a week later, that’s where you screwed up. You chuckled and said “You can find just about anything on the Internet.” You were supremely confident while you patronized me — even when I explained that my information came from the CDC. You couldn’t imagine a scenario where I had correctly diagnosed myself, which I guess was the reason why you protested testing my blood for antibodies. I’d already learned that many people develop those antibodies without getting sick, so it wasn’t a diagnostic test, but was still used to bolster evidence for the illness.

Thanks to that endo up there, I didn’t let it go. My information didn’t come from the website for “Billy Joe’s Bail Bonds and Medical Advice,” for the love of Mars. I felt (mostly) confident that my request was reasonable. And so you reluctantly agreed to do the test. And my, didn’t your tone change between that visit and the next one, when you informed me that I did in fact have the antibodies. The snotty condescension was gone now. I did appreciate that you apologized to me for the earlier brush-off. But boy, did I learn what kind of physician I needed: one who considered me a legitimate participant in my own healthcare, not an ignorant customer or a hypochondriac. One who didn’t feel the need to puff up like a pissed-off peacock when a patient brought her own information to bear. Oh, I’m sure you get a lot of crazy self-diagnoses. But by patronizing instead of listening, you wrote me off as a stereotype.

If the examination room is bigger on the inside, you have nothing to worry about.

To my third endocrinologist: Thank you for teaching me about physicians’ limits.

What happened? We started out so well. Despite learning through experience and numerous anecdotes about the odd behavior of people in your specialty, I was very happy with you…up to a point. Two points, really.

You were shocked — pleasingly to me — by how badly I’d been overmedicated, and started right away to correct that. You made it seem like you were on a mission to cure my thyroid. I also very much enjoyed how you always sat down with me and explained my lab results without patronizing me. I had learned a lot (for a layperson) about endocrinology by then, and you didn’t blow off my knowledge in our discussions. And I certainly did improve under your care.

Then I became euthyroid (neither hypo- nor hyper-). This should have improved my health greatly, but it didn’t. I still had fatigue, sometimes crushingly so. Our visits seemed increasingly pointless. You developed a motto: “Your thyroid is fine so you should be feeling fine.” It took me probably more time than it should have to realize that you weren’t saying “Let’s look into this some more”; you were saying “My part here is done and I can’t and/or don’t want to go any further than that.”

I realized this was a perfectly reasonable limit for a specialist, and since then every time I’ve seen one (and that ain’t a little), I’m prepared for the point where they really can’t help me anymore.

It was the second point that offended me. The last time I saw you, not only had I been confidently diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) by a new — and current — GP, it had also begun to get worse. When I started seeing you, I worked in the same city, so appointments were a breeze. Then I took a job that was further away, but it was still doable to drive out to you. By my last visit, however, I had to drive an even greater distance, and then of course back again, which had become extremely difficult for me.

Then came the surprise. After that visit, I called for my test results, and was told no. I would have to schedule an office visit to get those numbers. I questioned the nurse receptionist: I had been diagnosed with an illness that made another office visit onerous and likely to cause  my symptoms to flare up. Could I not in this case simply get my results? No, I was told, the doctor wanted to sit down with me as usual to go over them. The receptionist tried to tell me that it was the rules, but I’d received test results over the phone plenty of times before, including being told that I had early-stage cancer. So that story became “it’s the doctor’s rules.” I asked if I could leave a message for you about this situation.

You never called me. And when I called back to find out what happened, all I got was the requirement to come in for an office visit. A visit I would have to pay for both physically and financially. My test results were being ransomed for those costs. I couldn’t believe that a doctor — they care for patients, right? — would not budge on this point, would not show the slightest bit of compassion for my situation. I didn’t believe I was asking for anything extraordinary at all. And in the end, instead of wasting energy being pissed off trying to negotiate this, I decided that your terms were unacceptable, not to mention greedy and unkind. And I was taught not only about physicians’ practical limitations, but also their moral ones. Never did get those test results, not even in the mail.

***

Since all of this, I haven’t had any big problems with physicians. I can tell easily during the initial interview whether we’re going to work well together, and on my end I’ve also modified my own conversation patterns and expectations. When I look back at all these situations, I realize that a great deal of the problems rested on my not being an informed patient, not advocating for myself, and taking everything at face value. That would have helped greatly with that first endocrinologist; it definitely came in handy with the sports medicine guy.

So I am really and truly grateful that my negative experiences have produced positive results that will last me the rest of my life. And because I don’t want to leave on this note, I also want to thank the good doctors, the GPs and specialists who really want to help me, but usually can’t. My “CFS doc” has been amazing. I so appreciate the mutual respect of everyone who’s tried to get to the bottom of all my weirdo health stuff. In no way do I take this for granted — how could I, when I know full well what the alternatives are?

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

Weekend sendoff: Oh, you again?

Yes, it’s me again. 2011 has not, so far, left me with much blogging energy. There have been major transitions, some still in progress. I am optimistic that things will improve, since I also have a few other projects I’m eager to get back to.

Anyway, I wanted to share two articles about CFS and XMRV that sum up the situation very well. Both touch on the relationship between patients and researchers. The first is from the Chicago Tribune, with a good summary of the state of XMRV research. The die-hards dislike this writer, but I think she’s seeing the big picture and the article reflects that: there are a lot of CFS patients who believe in XMRV, but the research is not yielding more evidence in favor of it.

The chasm between the WPI and its supporters and many in the scientific community is emblematic of a new, modern-day dynamic in which patients keep close tabs on the work of researchers and feel empowered to challenge that work and form strong opinions about the quality of it.

An editorial in Nature goes into more depth on this aspect, and exhorts both sides of the argument to listen to and respect each other. (The first comment, by Brian Foley, mentions different etiologies, something I harp on a lot.)

The challenge for scientists in this field, as in any other that involves patients, is to understand and be motivated by the plight of the patient community without letting their research be swayed by it.

Good reporting on this “mess” is great to see in mainstream media like the Tribune and The Wall Street Journal. However, I’m wondering whether CFS patients, who have tried for decades to shed the images of laziness, mental illness, and hypochondria, aren’t developing a new stereotype for themselves: mouthy and unswayed by science. Obviously, this describes only a portion of the patient community, but as I’ve fretted before, I believe the rest of us may be thought of as guilty by association.

I don’t really try to convince people of which side they should be on anymore. I only ask for clarity of thought and acceptance of solid evidence. If XMRV is proven to be implicated in chronic fatigue syndrome, I will accept that scientific consensus just as I’ll accept the other one that may be forming.

I recognize that there are political and scientific considerations that do cast a reasonable doubt on all the XMRV criticism, and which I don’t follow as closely as many do. I might not be informed enough about those aspects. I also have encountered very little medical resistance and have a doctor who is actually interested to find out exactly what’s wrong with me. Many of the WPI followers have been legitimately burned by their experiences with medical science, and I think they come by their suspicions honestly.

So I follow the science, and hope that the pro-XMRV crowd at least take it into account, which too many do not. Suspicion is okay; conspiracy theory is going too far. Just as people demand understanding and respect from their doctors, so should they reciprocate.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon

A future I don’t want to see

Andrew Wakefield, that one-man wretched hive of scum and villainy, has been in the news again lately, thanks to reporting by Brian Deer that exposed him as not just incompetent, but an outright fraud. (Briefly, Wakefield knowingly falsified data in the now-retracted Lancet study connecting autism with the MMR vaccine, due to a glaring conflict of interest and a profit motive.)

Despite the mountain of solid evidence against him, however, some people still vehemently support him, claiming conspiracy theories and persecution, and citing their gut instincts. These people are not interested in the science, nor are they thinking critically. It’s all drama and emotion, with a giant dose of correlation-causation fallacy.

In another area of chronic illness, the debate over whether XMRV causes CFS has become nearly as polarizing as the divide between scientific evidence and anti-vaccination hysteria. It’s quite a different scenario, of course; Wakefield is up against that mountain of evidence while the XMRV-CFS connection has only been studied for a year, and a scientific consensus is not imminent.

Recently, I read a blog post by organic chemist David Lowe, who while expressing pessimism about XMRV, makes the important point that what we are seeing is the scientific process:

No, this isn’t looking good at all. It’s pretty typical, though, of how things are out at the frontiers in this business. There are always more variables than you think, and more reasons to be wrong than you’ve counted. A theory doesn’t hold up until everyone who wants to has had a chance to take some big piñata-shattering swings at it, with weapons of their choice. So, to people outside of research: you’re not seeing evidence of bad faith, conspiracy, or stupidity here. You’re seeing exactly how science gets done. It isn’t pretty, but it gets results in the end.

Lowe’s post was mentioned briefly on Virology blog (thanks to Linda Vansteenwinckel for the links), which quoted the same passage I just did. Lowe does delve into the XMRV debate, but both his post and the Virology one are clearly emphasizing the point about how the scientific process works. Reading the comments, I found it interesting that the discussion of both posts nevertheless ended up as debates about XMRV, many of which largely ignored the salient point.

I see plenty of patients who do the same thing. They fixate on something that happened during the course of XMRV-CFS research — a certain delay here, a miscommunication there — and focus their decidedly pro- or anti-XMRV stance around it. The problem is, nobody can make a valid decision at this point. There isn’t even close to enough science yet, but it’s as impossible to reason with some patients as it is with antivaxxers or creationists. I’ve expressed my own doubts about XMRV but I have no plans to pick a side in this debate until a consensus at least begins to form.

All of this, plus the worrisome hero worship of Judy Mikovits, lead researcher on the first XMRV-CFS paper, has got thinking about the CFS community compared with the situation with Wakefield and vaccines. Let me emphasize before anything else that when I say “worrisome,” I in no way am accusing Mikovits of the kind of deliberate fraud, falsified results, and ethically egregious behavior that Wakefield displayed. I still believe she has to answer for her appearance at the AUTISMONE conference along with Wakefield, and her very unfortunate association of vaccines and autism, but I believe at worst XMRV won’t amount to anything, not that she is shady or deceptive.

What’s worrisome about hero worship of a researcher is that a scientific issue starts to become about the cult of celebrity. Those who are in the cult band together for reasons that may have nothing to do with science whatsoever — for example, feelings of gratitude and relief that a scientist is paying due attention to a disabling chronic condition. Those feelings are of course understandable, but in extreme cases they develop into an emotional bond with the researcher, such as those who continue to support their perceived healer Wakefield no matter what.

Is this the culprit? No one knows yet.

Consider a future probably many years if not decades away. In this future, XMRV has been solidly rejected as a causative factor in CFS. There is more than enough evidence against it and a scientific consensus on the matter. Research has moved on. In this future, given the current discourse about XMRV, I can very easily see the CFS community become as divided as the situation with those who vaccinate and those who don’t. Antivaxxers firmly reject any evidence that has proven them wrong, and isn’t some of the CFS community heading down that road? In this future, I worry that the people who unquestioningly follow and support Judy Mikovits will continue to fly the XMRV banner for life, exactly as the antivaxxers have done with regard to Wakefield.

And in a world where unreasoned screaming tends to get more attention than solid science, I worry that CFS patients in this future will end up with a worse reputation than we currently have — worse because it will be true. People who currently can’t discuss the scientific process or worse, studies that do not show XMRV in CFS patients, without immediately becoming defensive and argumentative may become the people who cannot and will not accept that process — just like the antivaxxers today. Assuming Mikovits herself doesn’t accept the consensus (which she might well do), her devotees, even more united in support now that she is a “persecuted” figure such as Wakefield, may become derided and ignored by the legitimate scientific community — just like the antivaxxers today.

(On the other hand, in a future where XMRV is proven to be a cause of CFS, I’m pretty sure that most of those who determinedly made up their mind against that connection will immediately switch to the scientific consensus and accept treatment. But anyway.)

Again, I emphasize that Wakefield entirely brought his demise upon himself, and in my opinion those who continue to follow him are effectively as bad as he is. By contrast, while Mikovits has many similarly devoted supporters, she didn’t gain them through bad faith and deception. That’s a huge difference. But the end result in my hypothetical future is similar to Wakefield’s antivaxxers: CFS patients become known as anti-science loons blindly following not just a discredited theory but also the person who came up with it.

As with the vaccine “debate,” the central problem is a respect for and understanding of science versus loud, emotional, and unfounded rejection of science. At the moment, those who vehemently support Mikovits and the XMRV-CFS connection can’t be characterized as rejecting science, although they may still be quite loud and emotional. But the potential for that current line of thinking to develop into true anti-science, especially in that hypothetical future. The CFS community often suffers from a dangerous tendency to play the “I just know in my heart” card without thinking critically. Or even lazily spreading rumors and bad science without doing due diligence, such as in this completely egregious post from Phoenix Rising, a CFS site that has the questionable reputation of being a respected source of good information.

This is a future I don’t want to see. I don’t want there to become a genuine lunatic fringe in the CFS patient community, and I certainly don’t want to be stigmatized by association. Already I’m sometimes embarrassed by inarticulate and impassioned, multiply-fallacious comments devoid of any objective facts or evidence by a few of my fellow patients who engage in discussion on the science. Should I give those patients a break, because I of all people know what it’s like to have problems with cognition and concentration? No. I’m not talking about errors and goofs due to memory problems or other issues; I am well and truly capable of that. I’m talking about what I continually advocate: retaining the power of critical thinking despite our illnesses.

Every single one of us who has the capacity to contribute (to even the smallest degree) also takes on the responsibility to raise the level of discourse, effect respectful dialogues, be patient with the continuing research process, and keep our community connected rather than divided. Please, let’s learn a lesson from Andrew Wakefield before it’s too late.

Post to Twitter Post to Delicious Post to Digg Post to Facebook Post to Reddit Post to StumbleUpon