I believe and trust that no one is trying to diminish the suffering.  But within that I still feel there is condescension when someone describes the idea of investigating a person&#x27;s symptoms as directly reported &quot;Chasing down rabit-holes by pretending the anxiety is something &#x2F;else&#x2F;&quot;.  There is way more certainty and dismissal in that attitude than anybody has justified in my opinion.<p>Don&#x27;t get me wrong, I understand if investigating the direct symptoms might not be <i>practical</i> under some circumstances.  But saying it&#x27;s <i>useless</i> and &quot;pretending&quot; goes too far IMO.<p>&gt; But these things tend to self limit. Ann says she has chronic fatigue. She undergoes some psychological therapy. She gets some relief from her symptoms. A bunch of people in the CFS organisation now shun Ann, and tell her that she didn&#x27;t have real CFS.<p>I don&#x27;t see how this scenario answers my question.  Your story suggests that their is social pressure to resist the idea that the condition is <i>treatable</i>.  It doesn&#x27;t explain what would prevent an expanding scope for where the condition is <i>identified</i>.