In this essay, I will describe the misrepresentation of the illness and the research on CFS, the selective discussion of the evidence, the obvious preference for psychological explanations as well as the inaccurate portrayal of the patients, their beliefs and their behaviour. What is happening is unacceptable. There are rules which limit what scientists can say and write, and these journals are not adhering to them. With respect to other illnesses, editors do not allow doctors to ignore important and scientifically sound research which just happens to undermine their arguments. They do not allow writers to misrepresent and misinterpret their colleagues work or to put a 'spin' on the evidence so as to make it conform to their own preconceptions.
Similar rules apply in other professions.
As The Hon. As I will show, some doctors not only 'pick and choose' when discussing CFS but in doing so, they invariably trivialize the illness and exaggerate the role of psychiatric factors or the effectiveness of psychological interventions. The situation in Britain is further complicated by another practice. Most editors of medical journals respect the need for balance and are happy to publish a wide range of opinions and theories. In essence, they have excluded scientists like myself from presenting our data and taking part in the debate.