David Tuller

@davetuller1.bsky.social

Senior Fellow in Public Health and Journalism, Center for Global Public Health at the University of California, Berkeley. I blog at Virology Blog (virology.ws). My academic position is largely funded by donations from patients. [email protected]

@davetuller1.bsky.social

WTF, Springer Nature? Removing offensive language about patients being "combative" and "reproachful" is not enough. You need to explain why the language was there in the first place. virology.ws/2026/10/10/t...

virology.wsTrial By Error: Springer Nature Removes Description of "Fatigue" Patients as "Combative" and "Reproachful" | Virology BlogBy David Tuller, DrPH A month after publishing a German-language article about chronic fatigue syndrome as part of a larger project, Springer Nature has rem ...
@colleensteckel.bsky.socialReposted by @davetuller1.bsky.social

For those not familiar, one recommendation was to adopt the Canadian Consensus Criteria. This ME/CFS-CCC led directly to the ME International Consensus Criteria (ME-ICC). Instead of adoption they created the current ME/CFS-IOM criteria that does not include the most severe symptoms seen in ME.

@davetuller1.bsky.social

Hm, interesting that he cites me. It certainly wasn't ever my decision to combine the two. In general, I have tried to use what papers and other documents/governments have used, although of course it's complicated. I haven't been fully consistent as things have changed.

@davetuller1.bsky.social

As I understand it, it was ME in the UK. When the CDC in the 1988 Holmes paper identified the entity as CFS, the UK ran with that terminology and tried to disappear the ME throughout the 90s. But by CFS, they just meant really bad CF and didn't believe there was an actual ME.

@davetuller1.bsky.social

good job! Amazing you got them to actually post a correction. Wired also made two corrections--including having to correct the name of the disease from "myalgic encephalopathy"--without a correction notice. A week later, it posted one, but described it as a spelling problem--which it wasn't.

@davetuller1.bsky.social

what they did was not kosher. You never make a substantive change without noting it in a correction. To call something a "clarification" as if that gets you out of highlighting the change is absurd and does not conform to journalism practice. No one should have to go through multiple exchanges.

Older posts