Discussion of conditions with certain attributes always seems to be a can of worms.  By <i>attributes</i> I mean characteristics such as highly variable or difficult to describe symptoms, association with anxiety, depression, pain and other &quot;subjective&quot; states, and where the patient&#x27;s state crosses over poorly defined boundaries of &quot;mental&quot; and &quot;physical&quot; domains.<p>As commented by tudorw, an issue is &quot;mind-body dualism&quot;, a philosophy often associated with Descartes.  Dualistic belief is not exactly delusional, but certainly it&#x27;s not in accord with contemporary scientific work.  The problem stems from our modern materialistic disregard for the immaterial mind vs. esteeming the tangible body.  Dualism remains a principle source of stigma against acceptance of conditions involving difficulties integrating emotion, thought and action.<p>Adopting a scientific approach is assuredly optimum for health professionals, but given dualism is the predominant view in Western societies, the prescription to replace dualism with monism gets little uptake.  The problem as it exists among physicians only mirrors the broader culture, it must change in both subsets to have any effect at all.<p>As I recall the myth of &quot;objective reality&quot; has been discussed many times on HN. &quot;Embracing the scientific method&quot; is more problem than solution in this context.  That is, equating science with a distorted version of objectivity is a basis for the trouble dealing with FM, et. al., in the first place.<p>In a way, exposure to the class of illnesses like FM evokes responses somewhat like we&#x27;d expect on first hearing about quantum physics.  It&#x27;s confusing to people, it doesn&#x27;t compute, doesn&#x27;t make sense, doesn&#x27;t follow the rules we are used to.  Mind == body?  Wait a second, you mean there literally is no <i>mind</i>?  When we&#x27;re ready for that, then and only then will we begin to make progress.