The complete history of the chronic fatigue syndrome ©

with a report on the broad range of more than 100 theories about the cause, and a wide diversity of research studies and findings.

i.e. it is not just the watered down, censored. whitewashed version as seen in Wikipedia, where a small number of anonymous editors delete 95% of the history, and keep less than 5% of the evidence that they want you to see. It does not just trace one small track back in history, but covers most of the major scientific discoveries and conclusions. See also here


Three different labels for the same syndrome throughout history

and the easy way to scientifically verify and diagnose the physical basis of the symptoms.

Despite what many people say about the difficulty of determining a physical basis for the Chronic fatigue syndrome, it has been reasonably easy to diagnose the existence of a physical problem, involving a weakness of circulation, for about 100 years, It has been more obvious since my research confirmed it in 1982, where I established that it can be verified with scientifically reliable exercise testing.

in more modern times, it can be diagnosed with Tilt table tests which I also recommended.

According to the OMIM website, Da Costa's syndrome (of 1871), and the chronic fatigue syndrome (of 1999), are "similar in many respects" to Orthostatic intolerance (1997).

They are essentially the same syndrome with faintness and fatigue as the main symptoms and the same, or similar, or slightly different accompanying symptoms. See my report here

The situation is this . . . the symptom of faintness and fatigue are due to the inefficient blood flow between the feet and the brain . . . If you measure the pulse rate and blood pressure while the person is laying down, and then again when they stand up, there will be abnormal changes which are not seen in healthy people. The difference is even more obvious when the person is placed on a tilt table, and their pulse rate and blood pressure are measured immediately after they are tilted at different angles up and down, or from the left or right, or at other angles.

The only remaining question is what causes those scientifically proven physiological abnormalities.

100 more labels
If the same patient visited 100 different doctors he could be given 100 different labels

To give you some more details to consider, there have actually been more than 100 different labels for the same set of symptoms, and the history of the topic has been fraught with heated arguments between the proponents of one theory or another, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that my ideas have met with a lot of criticism. Consider this - if a person had chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, and fatigue, which were made worse by physical exertion in 1871, then J.M.Da Costa would have given them the diagnosis of Irritable heart. In the early 20th century the same patient would have been diagnosed with "Da Costa's syndrome". In 1919, during World War 1, if they reported the same symptoms in the army they would have been diagnosed with "Soldier's heart". In the United States, in the 1950's the diagnosis would have been "neurocirculatory asthenia", and in the late 1980's "the Chronic fatigue syndrome", and nowadays "Orthostatic Intolerance".

The label used depended on the time in history, and the diagnostic instruments which were invented and available in that era, and the type of specialist doing the assessment, and who was funding the research. For example, in the early 20th century a psychologist would have diagnosed the same patient with "anxiety neurosis", and in the late 20th century a psychiatrist would have diagnosed "somatoform autonomic dysfunction". Other specialist would have diagnosed thyroid disorder, or adrenal dysfunction etc. etc.

I looked at, and considered all of those ideas. See also a list of more thant 80 labels on another website with the section titled The Disease of a Thousand Names here, and my complete history of Da Costa's syndrome, which includes the chronic fatigue syndrome here, before it was deleted and replaced with a falsified version by two of it's editors.

The different types of 'chronic fatigue'

Generally speaking if a person has chronic fatigue it is due to inefficient blood flow, so naturally the tendency to faintness goes with it, and it is evident on tilt table tests (the symptoms are also typically aggravated by high levels of exertion). The other main symptoms are chest pains, palpitations, and breathlessness, which is called the 'cardiovascular type', but in some people the abdominal pain is more prominent, so it is called the abdominal type. In others headaches are more of a problem so it is called the cerebral type, and in some muscular aches and pains are prominent so it has been called the musculoskeletal type, and in some patients anxiety and depression are prominent, so it is called the emotional or psychological type. However, if you examined each patient closely enough you would find that those with the main type also have abdominal pains, and or headaches etc, and after a few years about 50% of them start having trouble with depression.

There are other problems with similar symptoms which create confusion, and there are some people (like my main critic), who seem to be deliberately trying to create confusion, but essentially if the patient doesn't have the orthostatic aspect then they have a different problem. For example, they may be tired a lot, but be able to climb mountains, so they don't have the typical chronic fatigue syndrome, but probably a sleep disorder like sleep apnea. They might also be experiencing fatigue due to anxiety or depression without having any of the symptoms of faintness or exercise limitations. ©

Only one label in Wikipedia? A whitewash of history

There is an article about the chronic fatigue syndrome in Wikipedia which has a history section in which it reports that in the past seventy years there has only been one theory about the cause. i.e. the theory that it is due to an infection. The section discusses an outbreak related to the polio virus in a Los Angeles hospital in 1934, another outbreak in the Royal Free hospital in London in 1955, where it was called Royal Free disease, and myalgic encephalomyelitis, and that the label of 'chronic fatigue syndrome' was used in the medical literature in 1988 where it was described as being similar to a chronic infection caused by the Epstein Barr virus. It reports that the chronic fatigue syndrome replaced the Epstein Barr virus syndrome as the label in 1988, and that the new definition was published by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention after they examined an outbreak in Lake Tahoe. They go on to report that in 2009 it was associated with the XMRV virus, but that in 2011 the authors of that idea partially retracted it because they were unable to reliably confirm it by blood tests etc. There was absolutely no mention of any of the 100 other theories, or the tens of thousands of other research papers on the topic. See here

Similar Whitewash of the history of gastric ulcer research

Similarly, as everybody over the age of 40 knows, that the cause of stomach ulcers was considered to be stress and it was regarded as a psychosomatic disease by almost every doctor. psychiatrist, and scientist, and was reported as being the main proof of a psychosomatic cause for disease in newspapers, magazines, and journals, and on television in the 20th century. However the real cause was found to be the helicobacter pylori bacteria, by Drs. Warren and Marshall in the early 1980's, and they were awarded the Nobel prize for medicine in 2005. However the history of the topic in Wikipedia only mentions that the first use of antibiotics as a treatment goes back to 1958, and doesn't mention anything at all about the psychosomatic theories which have been proven wrong. See here

At one stage I saw that their article attributed the psychosomatic theories to "nurses".

Note that I have known doctors who are of course, above average in intelligence, and reasonable people with a broad outlook on life, and I have read and heard about the massive mistakes of medical history, but obviously, there are some doctors who are embarrassed by the mistakes, and try to hide them.

A comparison - the sum of all human knowledge???

According to my main critic the policies of Wikipedia would only allow me to write the history of Da Costa's syndrome based on the official, modern, mainstream, top quality, independent, peer reviewed journals which had been published in the most recent two years.

That sounds "prim and proper" but it is like the way the British taught "world history" to school children in their colonies by using their official, modern, mainstream textbooks which described the glories of British history from the British point of view (which is fair enough), but they did not mention anything significant about the histories of the United States, Russia, China, Asia, South Africa, or South America. It represented the history of one country, not the world, so it could be described as many things, but it was definitely not a 'neutral point of view', or a representative point of view, or a 'reliable source" of "all" information, and it would certainly not meet Wikipedia's objective of including "the sum of all human knowledge". Needless to say Wikipedia is not a country, and its contributors and readers are not all schoolchildren.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink

Paul Dudley White studied Da Costa's syndrome for fifty years, during, between, and after two world wars. He became emeritus professor of Harvard Medical School, and was one of the founders of the American Heart Association, and it's president in 1941. He published 700 research papers and 12 books, including one of the most respected books on Heart Disease in 1931. One of his objectives was to determine the difference between the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome and those of heart disease. in chapter 22 of his 4th edition of 1951, he discussed Da Costa's syndrome which he called Neurocirculatory Asthenia, and he wrote these words to explain it's basic features . . . it is "a kind of fatigue syndrome . . . and . . . is a more or less chronic condition".

I therefore wrote the following words for Wikipedia . . . "Da Costa's syndrome could be referred to as a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome", and I supported the statement with eight additional references from top quality medical journals and books published between 1951 and 2008.

One of my two critics who admitted to not knowing much about the topic until I started adding such information, and who claimed to be an "instant" "expert" described White's reference as an unreliable out-of-date text book, and on 2-1-09 said "You are never going to convince me that Da Costa's syndrome is CFS. The sources simply don't exist for it." here

My critic, the self-proclaimed "instant expert", is not in any position to question the authority of Paul Dudley White, and ignorantly or deliberately failed to comprehend the difference between the words "type of", and "is".

There is a quote from the current 2008 edition of Harrison's Principle's of Internal Medicine which is one of the most respected references and text books available in international universities and medical schools. In it's opening paragraph about the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome it states . . .

"(CFS) is the current name for a disorder characterized by debilitating fatigue and several associated physical, constitutional, and neuropsychological complaints. This syndrome is not new; in the past patients diagnosed with . . . effort syndrome . . . may have had what is now called CFS (end of quote)
Note that Sir Thomas Lewis referred to Da Costa's syndrome as the 'Effort Syndrome' in 1919 because he observed that in some cases the symptoms only occurred during exertion.

Of course, many researchers regard them as the same condition, but there are nevertheless, some minor differences between White's description and the CDC definition, but WhatamIdoing, who is only an "instant" expert, was trying to create the ridiculous impression that I didn't recognise them. That editor was deliberately misrepresenting what I said, and was deliberately misrepresenting Paul Dudley White, and was deliberately misrepresenting the history of Da Costa's syndrome.

The article that I wrote, which was deleted by my two critics can be seen here


A modern quote that Da Costa's is similar to CFS

My main critic was arguing that there are no references to support the claim that Da Costa's syndrome is similar to CFS, but I used 7 different ones here, and she used only one which is a website called OMIM, as her reference number 11 here, which now, two and a half years later, states this . . .


"Orthostatic intolerance is a syndrome characterized by adrenergic symptoms that occur when an upright posture is assumed: the heart rate increases by at least 30 beats per minute, without orthostatic hypotension (Jacob et al., 1997). Most patients with orthostatic intolerance are women between the ages of 20 and 50 years (Low et al., 1995). This syndrome, first described by Da Costa (1871) has been called soldiers heart (Fraser and Wilson, 1918), neurocirculatory asthenia (Wooley, 1976), and mitral valve prolapse syndrome (Boudoulas et al., 1980). It is similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome (Schondorf and Freeman, 1999).."


That quote is from a website called "OMIM Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man - An Online Catalog of Human Genes and Genetic Disorders (Updated 7 October 2011), Orthostatic Intolerance #604715." See here


People with the chronic fatigue syndrome are often told that there is no scientific evidence of a physical basis for their symptoms, and that they are just complaining excessively about the sort of normal tiredness that everyone gets. They may also be told that they are just lazy, or are exaggerating or faking symptoms to get sympathy, or that they have never played sport in their lives and don't understand the normal symptoms of exercise, or that they are avoiding, or have a fear of the symptoms of exercise, or that it's just nerves, or that they are just worriers, or that they are just depressed or mentally ill, and their symptoms may be dismissed by ridicule with the use of various insulting labels such as 'yuppie flu'.

In fact, those attitudes and labels generally cause as many problems for the patient as the ailment itself. (They are not usually depressed when they first get the ailment, but within five years, about fifty percent become depressed). They are also often told that all they have to do is ignore their symptoms or think positively and they will go away, but it is not such a simple problem or solution. What those patients and the general public may not be aware of is that there are many people who spend a lot of their time inventing those labels and insults, and hiding, or denying, or deleting all of the scientific evidence which has been accumulated over the past 100 years. While I was in Wikipedia I spent 12 months providing a description of the history of research into an ailment called Da Costa's syndrome. However, I had two critics who were systematically deleting all evidence about the scientific discoveries of physical causes, and, at the same time, were filling the page with as many psychiatric labels, and as much obscure jargon as possible. Regardless of any other consideration they were giving them undue weight by flooding the page with such a slant and deliberately understating everything else.

They were also trying to hide the link between Da Costa's syndrome and the modern label of the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome so that nobody bothers to look at the scientific evidence. This webpage provides descriptions of how they did that, and it should be interesting reading for patients who have the chronic fatigue syndrome and wonder why they have so much trouble getting the reality of their ailment taken seriously. The scientific evidence that I provided may enable genuine CFS patients to defend themselves against false accusations about the nature of their illness. See the full history that I provided to Wikipedia here, and the remnant provided by my two critics after they deleted most of the relevant verifiable scientific information - by scrolling down to the end of the page here.


See also a recent study which reports the findings of CFS patients who had previously participated in sport.

Y.Jammes, J. Steinberg, and S. Deliaux (Nov. 24th 2011, 10.1111/1365-2796), Chronic fatigue syndrome: acute infection and history of physical activity affect resting levels and response to exercise of plasma oxidant/antioxidant status and heat shock proteins, Journal of Internal Medicine, Nov, 24, 2011, 10.1111/1365-2796. here

What my two critics don't want Wikipedia readers to do

1. They don't want readers to check the evidence that they were regularly telling lies. See here

2. They don't want readers to check the evidence that they were violating the Wikipedia policies. e.g. here

3. They don't want readers to check the evidence that they were telling lies about the history of Da Costa's syndrome and CFS.

4. They don't want readers to know that they refused to co-operate with the suggestion of "uninvolved", neutral, and "independent" editors, on how to produce an "unbiased" article. See here

5. They don't want readers to see evidence that they told lies in order to get me topic banned for their trumped up accusations of Confict of interest. See here


They think that the other editors and readers are as gullible and easily led as cattle - see the photo with the caption "I iz a PC CTL" at the top of their discussion here

They are a very serious liability to anyone who condones or supports their unethical editing practices, and wants the public to think that Wikipedia is a respectable organisation which is serious about providing reliable information.

For more information on their tactics see here

How my two critics used Wikipedia policy to falsify history

Soon after starting on the Da Costa's page it became obvious to me that I had two critics who were trying their hardest to give a false description of the history of the topic, and that they would never admit it, but were trying to hide their motives by telling other editors that they were removing important information for policy reasons.

For example, I added the original 1871 research paper of J.M.DaCosta as a reference and mentioned many of the comments from it, including the fact that he had no doubt that the tight military waist belts were aggravating the symptoms. To support that information I added another reference to an 1887 study which scientifically measured the pressure in the cavities of the chest and abdomen that was caused by tight corses. I also described Sir James MacKenzie's comments from 1916 about the fatigue being caused by a reduced supply of blood to the brain that was due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins. I mentioned Caughey's 1939 review of the literature of internal medicine where he described the typical health problems that adult Da Costa's paitents had when they were children, and gave his opinion that the symptoms were imaginary, and I included the 1947 study by S.Wolf which showed that the breathlessness was due to spasm of the breathing muscles, and Cohen and White's review of such studies which showed evidence that all of the symptoms had a real basis. I also included Wheeler's 20 year follow-up study of 173 patients which showed the causes and long term effects, and that the patients did not develop a greater incidence than normal, of other diseases that were supposed to be caused by anxiety. I mentioned Paul Dudley White's comment in his 1951 reference book that Da Costa's was a type of fatigue syndrome that was more or less chronic. I also mentioned the comments from Paul Wood's book of 1956 that the typical patient has a long, narrow chest and a thin and stooped physique, and I recommended the use of a photo in his book of the typical patient with that build. I mentioned Volkov's study in 1980 that measured the different levels of severity of the ailment and summarised Oglesby Paul's history of the topic as a quick way of finishing the essay in Wikipedia, that I was going to improve later. He discussed about ten theories and showed the controversies where each idea has research findings in favor, and against, and that the cause was not known. I later mentioned a review by Streeten in the Journal of the American Medical Association of 1998 to show similarities in the ideas about the chronic fatigue syndrome to those about Da Costa's in the early twentieth century.

My two critics deleted all of that information by arguing that Da Costa rejected his original idea about tight waist belts aggravating the symtpoms, however he didn't. In fact, when he observed the symptoms in soldiers who didn't wear such belts, he only concluded that it wasn't the 'primary' cause. They later deleted the scientific study of the effect of corset pressure in the abdominal cavities on the grounds that it didn't specifically mention Da Costa's syndrome, and that Wikpedia articles don't include lists of information on the color of every corset, or any such trivial details, etc. They deleted the comments by Sir James MacKenzie of 1916, about the fatigue being due to the abnormal pooling of blood in the abdominal and leg veins, on the grounds that he was just an ordinary physician who walked in from the street and attended a normal meeting that was not about the topic (He was actually Knighted for is contributions to medicine in 1916 and was one of the top authorities on the subject, and was organising the future research directions for Da Costa's syndrome)

Caughey's 1939 reference was deleted with a slab of other information. S.Wolf's information was deleted on the excuse that it was just one man's study, and was therefore a violation of original research policy, and the review of his work was deleted when a slab of other items were abbreviated on the grounds that policy demands that articles must be concise. They completely removed all information from Edmund Wheeler's follow-up study at the same time and gave the opinion that the 'self-reports' of patients are unreliable. Paul Dudley White was actually the world authority on this topic, and they deleted his comments on the grounds that his 1951 book was old, and that using it was a violation of the sourcing policy which demands that all references need to be published in the most recent five years, and preferably the past two years. Paul Wood was the top authority in the U.K. and they deleted the information from his book for similar reasons, and my recommendation about using the photo of the typical patient was not accepted because they said it was 'out-of-date'. They deleted my small paragraph about Volkov's scientific measurements by arguing that articles do not mention details of individual studies. They argued that I shouldn't refer to Oglesby Paul as a Harvard professor because that was 'peacocking' his credentials to make him sound important, and policy won't allow that. They also slab deleted my account of his summary of the contradictions and controversies, and the fact that none of the ideas about cause had been proven, and they deleted his conclusion that there was no known cure. They then replaced it with one sentence which stated that it had been labelled as an anxiety state. Their objective was to give the false impression that he concluded that it was an anxiety disorder, when, in fact, he didn't. They also deleted Streeten's review article in J.A.M.A. on the grounds that it was not a real review, but just the opinion of a non-expert in an 'op-ed' (opposite the editorial).

They also set up many discussion pages to find friends or get other editors to stop me from contributing to the topic page, or to ban me from Wikipedia. They argued that their dispute had nothing to do with the content in the article, and was solely because I was violating policy for putting the information there, or for bringing their editing into question.

As far as I could determine they were trying to deceive other editors who didn't know anything about the topic or it's history, because their main interests were in other topics related to sport, art, or administration etc.

Of course, my two critics were incapable of deceiving me, because i know the facts, and their attempts to alter the history were offensively obvious

See my main critics tirade of criticism of almost every item of content of the article here

See the comment by my other critic,Gordonofcartoon, who argued that the dispute was not about content??? here

This is an obvious fact; The two of them spent 12 months devising policy reasons as their excuse for deleting content.


A quote before you see my report about my main critics incessant lies about the history of the Chronic fatigue syndrome and the official CDC definition

The following quote is an extract from a website called emedicine - "Medscape's Continually Updated Clinical Reference" on the date of 6th January 2010 which states that it has "6,500 articles" and "10,000 Physician Contributors".


"Chronic fatigue syndrome defined
As a distinct clinical entity, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has only recently been defined for adults as a distinct disorder characterized by chronic (often relapsing but always debilitating) fatigue lasting at least 6 months (occasionally lasting much greater lengths of time), which causes impaired overall physical and mental functioning. The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) criteria have been broadly formulated in order to standardize research in the field, resulting in an operating framework that includes cognitive difficulties, pharyngitis, tender lymphadenopathy, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, sleep disturbance, poor sleep, and postexercise malaise . . .

Historic aspects of chronic fatigue syndrome
Although only recently codified by CDC case definition, chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) has had its homologues for many years, including such poorly described disease states as neurasthenia . . . and . . . Da Costa's syndrome (reported after the American Civil War)"

Contributors and authors

"Author: Robert W Tolan Jr, MD, Chief, Division of Allergy, Immunology and Infectious Diseases, The Children's Hospital at Saint Peter's University Hospital; Clinical Associate Professor of Pediatrics, Drexel University College of Medicine
Coauthor(s): Julian M Stewart, MD, PhD, Associate Chairman of Pediatrics, Director, Center for Hypotension, Westchester Medical Center; Professor of Pediatrics and Physiology, New York Medical College; Bryan D Carter, PhD, Professor of Child Psychology in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Chief Psychologist in Division of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Director of Predoctoral Internship in Clinical Child/Pediatric Psychology, Director of Postdoctoral Fellowship Program in Pediatric Psychology, Director of Pediatric Consultation-Liaison Service to Kosair Children's Hospital, University of Louisville School of Medicine. Contributor Information and Disclosure. Updated: Oct 5, 2010. See here


One typical paragraph of massive and blatant lies told by my main critic

My main critic wrote this comment addressed to me on their own UserTalk page so that other editors would see it and think that I was as fault. . . "we keep telling you things about basic Wikipedia conventions, and you don't seem to grasp them. For example, the mere fact that some editor lists CFS under ==See also== (formetly titled "Related articles") on the Da Costa's page does not make these condition the same. It doesn't even make them actually related. It just means that a single editor thought people looking at article #1 might also want to look at article #2.
The sources you use to "prove" that DCS and CFS are the same disorder are unbelievably weak. You are relying on a personal website about iguanas(!) to "prove" that CFS and DCS -- and, I add, Multiple chemical sensitivity, Fibromyalgia, Lyme disease, Brucellosis, and Poliomyelitis -- are the same thing. You cite a ten-year-old op-ed piece, and then you seriously misrepresent it, for example, by claiming that it names "post-viral fatigue syndrome" (a term not found anywhere in the opinion piece) as another label for DCS, and that the author asserts DCS is an early description of orthostatic hypotension, when in fact the sole mention of DCS in the entire opinion merely says "It has been speculated that..."
Your sources, and your use of these sources, do not represent the accepted views on this condition." WhatamIdoing ) 00:01, 3 January 2009 See here


Contradictory quotes from my main critic in Wikipedia before I was banned

That editor wrote . . . "Posturewriter . . . You are never going to convince me that Da Costa's syndrome is CFS. The sources simply don't exist for it." signed WhatamIdoing 6:55, 2 January 2009 here


This was part of my reply . . . "WhatamIdoing; Da Costa’s syndrome has been described as being related to CFS since the Da Costa’s syndrome article page was started on 15-5-2006 here, 15 months before I started adding to it. signed Posturewriter 09:28, 2 January 2009 See here

This was my main critics argumentative and disruptive response . . . "Posturewriter . . . " the mere fact that some editor lists CFS under See also formerly title "Related articles" on the Da Costa's page does not make these conditions the same. It doesn't even make them actually related. it just means that a single editor thought people look at article # might also want to look at article #2". signed WhatamIdoing 00:01, 3rd January 2009 see here .


This was part of my reply . . . "WhatamIdoing, You are also violating wiki etiquette policy by taking my words out of context and then putting words into my mouth that do not exist when you say . . . “The sources you use to "prove" that DCS and CFS are the ***same*** disorder are unbelievably weak."
:My exact words are quite different and are . . . “Da Costa’s could be referred to as a ***type of*** Chronic fatigue syndrome,[4][57][16][43][44][39][7][10][9] because chronic fatigue is the main symptom, but the other five typical symptoms distinguish it from the general term[4], and from other types of CFS[43]" signed Posturewriter 01:21, 3 January. See here.


Four months after I was banned the same person wrote this response to an editor named Cool Hand Luke . . .

"Some people think that Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS. This view is generally taken by pro-CFS people.

Some fraction of the 19th and 20th century cases very probably were the dominant form of modern CFS . . . I therefore think it quite reasonable to include it in the general category of CFS-related articles on Wikipedia." signed WhatamIdoing 02:17, 22nd May 2009. See here


The comments above pose many curious questions including these two . . .

1. Why did that editor say it was not related when I mentioned it, and yet she said it was "quite reasonable" to include in the category of CFS-related articicles when another editor suggested it.

2. Who, apart from my two critics, are the "anti-CFS people"?



Here is a quote from my other critic (the pair of them often contradicted each other)
"Da Costa's syndrome "is" a historical ME-type disorder" signed Gordonofcartoon here


Here are some quotes from other editors

"Many of the sources we use also say CFS/ME but we generally just use CFS throughout the article unless the reference specifically uses just one term (e.g. talking historically about ME)" signed sciencewatcher" here


"The way I personally look at it . . . CFS and ME redirect to the same article" signed Rlevse here

"I think this is a fair appraisal of the situation. I agree" signed Tasoskessaris Dr.K.. 29 May 2009 here


(note that ME is the abbreviation for myalgic encephalomyelits, and ME/CFS is the abbreviation of patients who are referred to as having type of CFS called myalgic encephalomyelitis, or to patient groups which include one or both types. i.e. one of my two critics named Gordonofcartoon was saying that Da Costa's syndrome is a type of ME disorder, which is a type of CFS, and my other critic, named WhatamIdoing, was arguing that it was not a type of CFS.)

More on the Da Costa's syndrome and the Chronic fatigue syndrome issue,
and "orthostatic intolerance"

My two critics could not argue with the facts that I provided to Wikipedia so they misrepresented my words to make my statements "appear" to be wrong."
They then tried to defeat their "own" mistaken account of my argument. i.e. they were just defeating themselves.
The straw man argument according to Webster's dictionary
"Present you opponent's argument in weakened form, refute it, and pretend that you've refuted the original"


The Da Costa's syndrome article first placed in Wikipedia by an editor named Michael Dart at 21:12 on 15-5-2006 , It had only four lines of text followed by a section called "Related" which contained two entires including "chronic fatigue syndrome".

See here

It was still listed under in that section when my main critic edited the page at 17:08 on 17-10-07 here

I started contributing to the topic at 7:39 on 9-12-12-07 here

On that same page it was referred to as a condition that was first observed in soldier's in the American Civil War.

The following words remained after my account of the condition had been deleted and were still there on 16-4-2009 . . . "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome" here

If you was an experienced journalist for your state newspaper called "The Daily News" and was to report on the Wikipedia information you would probably look up the meaning of the term "orthostatic hypotension" and find that it was a type of low blood pressure that mainly occurred when a person moved from the laying position to the standing position, and hence caused a temporary sense of faintness when standing up quickly.

If you was asked to write a short paragraph about the history of the chronic fatigue syndrome according to Wikipedia you would, I assume, write something like this . . . "According to Wikipedia, modern patients with the chronic fatigue syndrome sometimes feel faint when standing up suddenly. This symptom was also seen in patients of the past who had been diagnosed with Da Costa's syndrome". If you did write that you would be writing the same as me and would be 100% correct.

To gain an understanding of the discussions try putting yourself in my place and read the following discussion. Here were some comments by WhatamIdoing that were addressed to me . . .

"Posturewriter . . . I read the source, and it doesn't change the critical facts that CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion and that neurally mediated hypotension causes fatigue (a hallmark symptom of NMH). It is simply not possible to have both of these conditions so -- although it is entirely possible for a person to be told that he has CFS when he actually has NMH (a condition that is easily overlooked and rarely tested for). I refuse to pretend away verifiable facts under the guise of 'being civil'. Being civil doesn't mean agreeing to nonsense, even if the nonsense is sincerely believed or based on honest mistakes" WhatamIdoiong 02:21, 1st January 2009 here

and WhatamIdoing later continues . . . "we keep telling you things about basic Wikipedia conventions, and you don't seem to grasp them. For example, the mere fact that some editor lists CFS under See also formerly titled "Related articles") on the Da Costa's page does not make these condition the same. It doesn't even make them actually related. It just means that a single editor thought people . . . WhatamIdoing 00:01, 3 January 2009 see here

Here is one of my replies from at 1:21 on 3 January 2009 " WhatamIdoing, You are . . . violating wiki etiquette policy by taking my words out of context and then putting words into my mouth that do not exist when you say . . . "The sources you use to prove that DCS and CFS are ***same*** disorder are unbelievably weak. My exact words are quite different and are on the subpage at the end of the paragraph here [7] . . . "Da Costa's could be referred to as a type of Chronic fatigue syndrome,[4][57][16][43][44][39][7][10][9] because chronic fatigue is the main symptom, but the other five typical symptoms distinguish it from the general term[4], and from other typeslp of CFS[43]" Posturewriter 01:21, 3 January 2009 That full discussion can be seen here

(note that I provided nine numbered references to verify that nine different research articles included both CFS and DCS in their titles or first paragraph.)

At 20:25 on 27-1-09, more criticism and blatant lies by WhatamIdoing are made on the same topic with these words on the Requests for arbitration page "Similarly, at one time, Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was listed in the See also section. Posturewriter has recently argued that the inclusion of the CFS article in See also proves that DCS is a type of CFS. Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints . . . I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome. WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 " here


Here is a quote from a modern source (still current at 1-5-10) which was provided, and used by my two critics, and is the official OMIM website . . .

"This syndrome, first described by Da Costa (1871) . . . is similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome (Schondorf and Freeman, 1999) here


At 2:17 on 22-5-09, four months after I was banned, WhatamIdoing was POMPOUSLY trying to impress another editor named Cool Hand Luke, by acting like an expert who knew more about the subject of Da Costa's than anyone else, such as myself or Guido, and used these words . . ."Some people think that Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS. This view is generally taken by pro-CFS people (like the editor in question, except that he's a splitter instead of a lumper by preference), and it's impossible to disprove, because DCS was actually several separate syndromes . . .

Some fraction of the 19th century and early 20th century cases very probably were the dominant form of modern CFS (chronic orthostatic hypotension due to autonomic dysfunction).

I therefore think it quite reasonable to include it in the general category of CFS-related articles on Wikipedia . . . WhatamIdoing 2:17, 22 May 2009 here


Note that WhatamIdoing had me banned for being disruptive by saying that the symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome were similar to those seen in the modern definitions of CFS, and four months later is trying to act like a seasoned authority on the topic by making exactly the same statement and recommending that it be put in Wikipedia on the related category of the CFS page. The situatation has gone through a complete 180 degree spin where the DaCosta's page had a "Related" section which included CFS", and that section was removed, and now WhatamIdoing is recommending that Da Costa's syndrome should be added to the "related category" on the CFS page.

Here are my closing comments; The word chronic generally refers to a long lasting condition, such as chronic arthritis due to wear and tear damage of the knee joint, as distinct from temporary, or 'acute' inflammation of a joint due to a sports injury. The word fatigue has two basic meanings, with the first being tiredness, and the second being fatigue due to exercise. The word syndrome means a condition in which several symptoms tend to be seen as a set. A fatigue syndrome generally refers to a set of symptoms where fatigue is the most prominent. Da Costa's syndrome is a chronic condition which includes four or five typical symptoms with fatigue being the main one. Paul Dudley White described it as a fatigue syndrome which is generally chronic, so it is, without any doubt a chronic fatigue syndrome, and it is obvious. However the modern definitions of the chronic fatigue syndrome have been formalised by several authorities and have slight differences to the precise description of Da Costa's syndrome. It also needs to be said that in 1871 Da Costa was not looking for one syndrome. He was trying to find out the nature of ailments that had symptoms similar to heart disease occuring in the apparant absence of heart disease. The most common one that became known as Da Costa's syndrome, had five classic symptoms which most prominent authorities agreed upon, and they were left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, and fatigue, and in some patients, they all occurred only during exertion. The fact that several modern ailments have those sympoms is "obvious", but WhatamIdoing is trying to create the ridiculous impression that I don't know that. I was the person who added Da Costa's original research paper to the reference list, because neither of my critics did.

Furthermore, the similarities have been reported by the other editors before I started, and are still there since I have been banned, and my critics are now making the same statement themselves as if they have always known it, which they didn't. Here is what WhatamIdoing wrote on the arbitration page on 27 January 2009 . . .
"I didn't know much about Da Costa's syndrome (DCS) and had some hope that we might have a good editor involved". signed WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27-1-2009


Note that if I didn't add the information to Wikipedia WhatamIdoing still wouldn't know much about it, and when a person misrepresents my comments, and tells everyone else that I'm wrong, and then deletes the information, and later pretends to be the source of it, they are generally called a liar, a cheat, and a plagiarist. You will have to check the evidence and make up your mind about that yourself.

More Evidence of WhatamIdoing's ever changing opinion

At 21:21 on 5-10-08 WhatamIdoing cut and pasted the text of my subpage and subjected it to 80 points of criticism. The following extract contains my words in black, and WhatamIdoings words in red.

"Oglesby Paul summarised many of the Da Costa controversies in a 1987 edition of the British Heart Journal[2] and since then the use of the term has become rare and . . . it has been absorbed into other modern categories of labelling. The abnormal response to effort is consistent with the modern equivalent of effort intolerance[original research?] which is a symptom of a type of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome [True, but so are many things] which is a sub-type of the chronic fatigue syndrome.[Error][original research] WhatamIdoing here


Seven months later, at 17:22 on 22-5-09, , and four months after I was banned, WhatamIdoing wrote the following words in response to a comment by CoolHandLuke . . .Some people think Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS . . . and . . . Some fraction of the 19th century and early 20th century cases very probably were the dominant form of modern CFS (chronic orthostatic hypotension due to autonomic dysfunction). I therefore think it quite reasonable to include it in the general category of CFS-related articles on Wikipedia" WhatamIdoing 02:17, 22 May 2009 here


Summary: Before I was banned WhatamIdoing was trying to convince all of the other editors that I was wrong for saying that Da Costa's syndrome was related to the general category of chronic fatigue syndromes, and after I had been banned, the same person was involved in a discussion with another editor named CoolHandLuke and advised him that it is a QUITE REASONABLE suggestion.



Here is one of my replies . . . "WhatamIdoing,You are . . . violating wiki etiquette policy by taking my words out of context and then putting words into my mouth that do not exist when you say . . . The sources you use to prove that DCS and CFS are the same disorder are unbelievably weak"

My exact words are quite different and are on the subpage at the end of the paragraph here [7] . . . "Da Costa's could be referred to as a***type of Chronic fatigue syndrome,[4][57][16][43][44][39][7][10][9] because chronic fatigue is the main symptom, but the other five typical symptoms distinguish it from the general term[4], and from other types of CFS[43]" Posturewriter 01:21, 3 January 2009 That full discussion can be seen here

Note that despite me criticising the fact that my words had been deliberately taken out of context, WhatamIdoing continued to write blatant lies by taking them out of context again, only eight days later, this time on the disruptive editing page, with these words . . . "Posturewriter . . . The place to make your argument that "a kind of fatigue syndrome" that "is more or less chronic" is the same thing as the Chronic fatigue syndrome is at WP:NOR." WhatamIdoing 23:04, 11 January 2009 here

. . . and yet again, three weeks later with these words on the Requests for arbitration page . . . "Posturewriter has recently argued that the inclusion of the CFS article in See also proves that DCS is a type of CFS. WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009" here


WhatamIdoing's style of falsifying the argument is a classic or typical "straw man tactic" as defined in the Wordsmyth dictionary with these words "a weak, easily refuted argument or position, alleged by a politician, debater, or the like to be held by his or her opponents, so that he or she can appear to be superior or victorious by demolishing the argument or position". here

See also here

The frequently repeated "details" of the pedantic spin

My main critic insisted that any mention of similarities between Da Costa's syndrome and the chronic fatigue syndrome must be supported by top quality, modern, independent references, so I provided about a dozen which were readily available by a quick search. They all used the two terms as meaning the same thing.

I then described the similarities and overlaps between the various labels and definitions.

However, WhatamIdoing then told other editors that I was trying to 'prove' that they were the same????


Actually I was just complying with Wikipedia policies which require a person to provide top quality references to verify all of the statements that are made, and I was providing about a dozen research papers in which the authors routinely regarded CFS of today, as being called Da Costa's syndrome in the past.

WhatamIdoing's Disruptive Editing of the CFS topic
The issue of Harmony and Controversy

While I was contributing to the Da Costa's page I mentioned the fact that there had been 140 years of heated arguments about it, and more than 80 different labels and ideas about cause, and that one of the casually, and routinely accepted observations and statements made by many independent researchers from multiple disciplines in multiple countries was that it was similar to what is now known as the chronic fatigue syndrome, and many of them used the term as if it was the same. In fact, in 1951, Paul Dudley White, who studied the problem for thirty years, used these exact words to describe it . . . "it constitutes a kind of fatigue syndrome" . . . and in some cases . . . "it is more or less a chronic condition" (end of quotes).

However, WhatamIdoing deleted all of that information, and the references and evidence, and was trying to create the ridiculous illusion that the research had always been harmonious, and that most of the top researchers always agreed with each other, and that there was only one type of officially recognised definition of CFS, and that DCS did not fit into it, because CFS was a diagnosis of exclusion????

Four months after I was banned, that editor, who has belligerent ways of imposing personal opinions (with attitude readjustment tools, tag-teaming, and edit wars), wrote the following pompous and sancitimonious words in an attempt to appear detached from the topic of CFS . . .

"Most complex medical conditions don't have five or six major definitions, either. I can't say I'm surprised by the POV concerns at these articles; it would be more surprising if someone said that there wasn't a dispute there!" User:WhatamIdoing 05:45, 21 June 2009 here

That editor was being deliberately misleading because ailments that have a universally accepted cause may have only one definition, but it is common for disorders of disputed cause to have at least 'five or six major definitions', and it is ridiculous to favor one over all others.

Instead of making things difficult for people who are actually doing something useful to improve the understanding of CFS, WhatamIdoing should try making constructive comments and acknowledge that NONE of the definitions are universally accepted, and that separate pages ARE required to discuss the different types and ideas about cause.


The arguments continue

Just as there were heated debates about Da Costa's syndrome throughout it's history, there are continuing hostile arguments about the Chronic fatigue syndrome, as you would expect, and that is 'extremely obvious' in the current Wikipedia talk page about the chronic fatigue syndrome at 2:59 on 7 May 2010, which can be seen here

I do not wish to cast judgement on any of the contributors to the discussions, but merely to use them to demonstrate the existance of strong views.

Here is an extract from the first of many comments on that page . . . "Ward20 and ME mafia editors control this article, it is not acceptable. When you are a patient activist or you get money from CFS patients, causes pls declare your interest and STOP messing w Wiki. CBT is the only treatment w evidnece in controlled trials, XMRV is total BS and nonMEDRS, pls stop and go write your blogs people, WP is a serious encyclopedia. RetroS1mone talk 05:15, 5 May 2010. . .
Please refrain from repeating baseless accusations that have already been addressed, and editing against consensus. - Tekaphor 10:24, 5 May 2010 (end of extracts)
See also here

Another comment from a different editor sheds some light on another aspect of the controversy with these words . . . "There have been lots of biomedical studies from the UK (not sure if they were funded by MRC or not), and many of them from Simon Wessely you will be surprised to hear. Try doing a search on google scholar rather than believing all the conspiracy theories you hear in patient support groups" Sciencewatcher 19:13, 4 June 2010 here

Another aspect of disputes and controversies about the chronic fatigue syndrome can be seen in an article in the Green Left Weekly of July 21 1999 here

This is a quote from "Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine" 6th edition, 1970 . . . "Neurasthenia . . . the latter term had wide popularity in the nineteenth century and is now obsolete. It referred to a state in which the major symptoms were chronic fatigability, lack of endurance, backache and headache".

It is more than obvious to anyone who has read 'ALL' aspects of the 'relevant' research, that chronic fatigue was a common problem in the nineteenth, and twentieth centuries, and today, and that the labels and definitions, and the opinions about cause have changed regularly, but the topic being discussed is essentially the same condition, or a distinct subset of it, and the disputes about it will continue.


Additional Evidence of WhatamIdoing's Deliberate and Blatant Lies

At 6:55 on 2nd January 2009 WhatamIdoing made the following comment

"You are never going to convince me that Da Costa's syndrome is CFS. The sources simply don't exist for it."


At 00:01 on 3rd January 2009 WhatamIdoing continued with these comments . . . "The mere fact that some editor lists CFS under ==See also== (formerly titled "Related articles") on the Da Costa's page does not make these conditons the same. It doesn't even make them 'actually' related.
It just means that a single editor thought people looking at the article #1 might also wat to look at article #2 . . . Your sources, and your use of these sources, do not represent the accepted views on this conditon."



At 23:04 on 11th January 2009 the same editor made more remarks on the Disruptive Editing page . . . "The place to make your argument that "a kind of fatigue syndrome" that "is more or less chronic" is the same thing as Chronic fatigue syndrome is at WP:NOR"

On 18th January 2009 I gave the following reply . . . "Please . . . note that I have used words such as Da Costa's syndrome is a "type of" CFS[18], and "needs to be distinguished from"[19], and I have not said that DCS is the same as CFS.

You are the only one who thinks that I am saying DCS "is" or is the "same" as CFS and you have said it repeatedly in an attempt to discredit me e.g. here [20], and again here [22] . . . Please also not that Gordonofcartoon has stated that "Da Costa's syndrome "is" a historical ME-type disorder" in the very first words of his opening sentence on the COI number 1 pate here [23], and note that ME is also called CFS according to WP:MEDRS here [24], so you should be trying to convince him that it is not a "type of CFS" Posturewriter 07:00 18 January 2009. That discussion can be seen here . . . and his original comments from the 'Conflict of interest' number 1 page are here


At 1:23 on 22nd May 2009 an editor named CoolHandLuke wrote the following comments about Guido den Broeder who was co-founder of the Dutch ME/CFS society . . . "Although we didn't formally topic ban him from Da Costa's syndrome, we will be reviewing his activity. If he resumes any kind of problematic editing, give us a nudge and we'll either expand his topic ban" :Cool Hand Luke'" 01:23, 22 May 2009 here


The following statement was made by another editor more than a year after I was banned. Many of the sources we use also say CFS/ME but we generally just use CFS throughout the article unless the reference specifically uses just one term (e.g. talking historically about ME). --sciencewatcher 23:04, 18 June 2010 see here

Note that my comments were not made to describe what one researcher, or one organisation said, or by what 'everybody' on earth said, but was simply a straight forward observation that the symptoms are very similar, and that it is routinely taken for granted, and widely regarded, that they are similar, if not the same condition, and that it is very easy to find examples in all levels of research, including top quality research journals, and medical text and reference books, and amongst Wikipedia editors.


My main critic, WhatamIdoing, who argued that Da Costa's syndrome was not related to chronic fatigue syndrome before I was banned made the following comments on 22nd May 2009, four months after I was banned . . . "Some people think that Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS. This view is geerally taken by pro-CFS people . . . Some fraction of the 19th and early 20th century cases very probably were the dominant form of modern CFS . . . I therefore think it quite reasonable to include it in the general category of CFS-related articles on Wikipedia" signed WhatamIdoing 02:17, 22nd May 2009 CFS here


On 29-5-09 an editor named Rlevse made the following remarks to Guido den Broeder in an attempt to get a topic ban on him . . . "The way I personally look at it, since CFS and ME redirect to the same article,

both fall under the topic ban" Rlevse 02:07, 29 May 2009  here

Also on 29-5-09 another editor named Tasoskessari Dr.K. added . . . "I think this is a fair appraisal of the situation. I agree" Tasoskessaris Dr.K. 02:15, 29 May 2009 here


Six to one against my main critic, and none in favor - WhatamIdoing was the only person to argue that Da Costa's syndrome was not related to the Chronic fatigue syndrome, however every other editor who discussed that aspect said that they were related, including Sciencewatcher, CoolHandLuke, Rlevse,Tasoskessari, Guido den Broeder and "pro-cfs people", and "many of the sources that cfs editors use", and even Whatamidoings own tag-team partner, Gordonofcartoon, and that situation continued before and after I was banned.

A summary of the widely accepted, neutral point of view about DCS and CFS

Note that I have been writing an account of the history of DaCosta's syndrome, and was told to provide some modern references so I added more than ten. Such references frequently refer to the similarity, or overlap of the symptoms of CFS to those of Da Costa's syndrome, and many use the terms synonymously. However, WhatamIdoing was being offensively pedantic in an attempt to discredit me and disrupt my contributions by falsely arguing that it did not represent the accepted view on 3-1-09, but my other critic Gordonofcartoon stated, without prompting from me, the it is an historical type of ME, and according to WhatamIdoing pro-CFS people have that general view, and Rlevse's "personal" view is that ME and CFS are the same, and Dr.K agrees, which means that it is "obvious" and widely accepted, and assumed by people familiar with the topic. That general view is evident inside, and outside of Wikipedia, regardless of whether I notice the similarities or not. i.e. . . .

It is an independently verifiable and widely accepted view that Da Costa's syndrome, Myalgic Encephalomyelitis, and Chronic fatigue syndrome are the same type of ailment in the same general category.



WhatamIdoings Deliberate and Calculated attempt to misrepresent the DCS and CFS issue

11-1-09 WhatamIdoing wrote these deliberately misleading words on the Disruptive Editing page . . . "The place to make your argument that "a kind of fatigue syndrome" that "is more or less chronic" is the same thing as Chronic fatigue syndrome is at WP:NOR". WhatamIdoing 23:04, 11-1-09

18-1-09 I wrote the following response . . . "Please also note that I have used words such as Da Costa's syndrome is a "type of" CFS[18], and "needs to be distinguished from"[19], and I HAVE NOT SAID that DCS is THE SAME AS CFS. You are the only one who thinks that I am saying DCS "is" or is the "same" as CFS, and you have said it repeatedly in an attempt to discredit me e.g. here[20], and again here[21] and again here[22]. . . . Please also note that Gordonofcartoon has stated that "Da Costa's syndrome "is" a historical ME-type disorder" here[23], and note that ME is also called CFS according to WP:MEDRS here[24] , so you should be trying to convince him that it is not a "type of CFS"Posturewriter" 07:00, 18 January 2009 here

28-1-09 on the Request for Arbitration page WhatamIdoing made this devious statement . . . "Similarly, at one time, Chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) was listed in the See also section. Posturewriter has recently argued that the inclusion of the CFS article in See also proves that DCS is a type of CFS . . Every single correction or discussion is met with a hostile litany of complaints. The article's talk page and his own talk page is filled with endless arguments about every single point. The article's history is full of edit wars as he tries to force unreliable and misrepresented sources into it." WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2009 here

Note that WhatamIdoing is fully aware of the fact that I have said that DCS and CFS are not exactly the same, and that I have not been trying to prove they are.

Da Costa's syndrome is not exactly the same as any of the modern descriptions of the chronic fatigue syndrome because they are precisely defined and have some minor differences. However that does not change the fact that Da Costa's syndrome been described and defined by Paul Dudley White and most other authorities in the history, as being "chronic", and has the main symptom of "fatigue", and it is a "syndrome" involving several other symptoms. WhatamIdoing knows that and has been DELIBERATELY TELLING CALCULATED LIES and DELIBERATELY TWISTING WORDS to misrepresent my comments at every opportunity.


More Evidence of my critics telling Deliberate Lies about CFS (and Orthostatic Intolerance)

I used a reference from JAMA which discussed how the delayed orthostatic hypotension seen in the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome was similar to the earlier descriptions of the features and symptoms of Da Costa's syndrome. The delayed return to normal blood pressure after standing results in a temporary sense of faintness and is referred to as orthostatic intolerance (OI)

My main critic WhatamIdoing objected to that and said it was wrong.

These words come from the Canadian Expert Consensus Panel Clinical Case Definition for ME/CFS published in the Journal o Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Volume 11, (1) 2003, p.7-116

"In order to be diagnoses with ME/CFS you must have at least one symptom out of two of the following categories . . .

(a) Autonomic manifestations: Orthostatic Intolerance Neuroendocrine Manifestations (c) Immune Manifestations"

Those words were extracts from the following website cited at 27-6-09 . . . and from the journal above.

i.e. Orthostatic Intolerance is one of the main symptoms of one of the main definitions of CFS


One of the references used in the list provided by my two critics is the official OMIM webisite which includes these words . . .

"Orthostatic intolerance is . . . similar in many respects to chronic fatigue syndrome" here

Of course, WhatamIdoing would quibble about the difference between the words 'similar' and 'related'.

However that editor gave the following advice to Avnjay on 25-10-08 to have it deleted . . .

"You technichally can't have CFS if you have OI, because OI is known to cause fatigue, and CFS is a diagnosis of exsclusion" signed WhatamIdoing 17:04, 25 October 2008 here


WhatamIdoing's Lies about CFS and OI continued with the following words of 3 November 2008 "Also, to clarify my earlier comment: CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion. If you have fatigue due to HVS or orthostatic intolerance, then you cannot, by definition have CFS. WhatamIdoing 18:29, 3 November 2008 here

The following words remained after my account of the condition had been deleted and were still there on the Da Costa's syndrome page of16-4-2009 "The orthostatic intolerance observed by Da Costa has since also been found in patients diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome" here

The topic was mentioned by WhatamIdoing again a month later, in a discussion with CoolHandLuke. These were WhatamIdoing's words of 22-5-09

"Some people think that Da Costa's was one of the original (19th century) descriptions of what we now call CFS" . . . and . . .

"Some fraction of the 19th century and early 20th century cases very probably were the dominant form of modern CFS (chronic orthostatic hypotension due to autonomic dysfunction)"



Note that WhatamIdoing started in 25-10-08 and then 3-11-08 with a statement that you can't have CFS if you have OI, and on 22-5-09, four months after I was banned states that "Some fraction; of DCS very probably were the dominant form of CFS (orthostatic hypotension)"


An explanation of the facts

DaCosta observed that some soldier's would collapse with fatigue, or faint and fall out of line after marching for 20 miles in hot weather with poor food and water while carrying 60lb knapsacks on their backs and suffering from fevers due to viral infections. They recovered from the viral infection after several months in hospital but continued to feel faint when they rushed about, or stood up suddenly. Faintness is due to low blood pressure which is not forceful enough to push blood up to the head against the effects of gravity. When a person stands up suddenly the effect of gravity on the blood increases so that type of faintness is more noticeable. and it is called orthostatic hypotension or intolerance (OI). ('Ortho' means straight, or upright, and 'hypotension' means low blood pressure) Hence occasional faintness when standing up, (OI), is a symptom of Da Costa's patients. It is also a symptom of CFS, therefore orthostatic intolerance is a symptom in both. Some researchers believe that the OI is the cause of all the other symptoms of DCS, and some believe it is the cause of all of the symptoms of CFS, so to them DCS=OI=CFS, or DCS=CFS. However, there are many other theories on causes, types, and mixes of symptoms and conditions, so I have simply suggested that the DCS is similar to, or has been absorbed into the modern category of "chronic" "fatigue" "syndromes". Naturally the difference is not that simple, which is why I have given more details that my two critics.M.B.


This is a statement by WhatamIdoing about one of the many other theories which proposes that excessive breathing, or hyperventilation, is the cause of all of the symptoms, and hence is called the 'hyperventilation syndrome' or HVS. . . "HVS explains all of the symptoms." here

More Evidence of WhatamIdoing's Lies

Many prominent DCS researchers have reviewed the history of the topic, and they have all noted the many and varied theories of cause, so I have added information about their views. Most of them include anxiety as one of the causes, and give their reasons for agreeing, or doubting it. However, WhatamIdoing was trying to emphasise anxiety as a cause, while at the same time trying to make me appear foolish by descibing me as someone who had difficulty understanding or accepting that aspect.

Here was part of my paragraph on in the causes section and is from J.M. DaCosta's original 1871 research paper . . . "the causes were "Fevers" 17%, "Diarrhoea" 30.5%, "Hard field service, particularly excessive marching" 34.5%, and finally, "Wounds, injuries, rheumatism, scurvy, ordinary duties of soldier life, and doubtful causes" 18%.[7][12" . . . note that Da Costa himself did not include anxiety in his percentages.

These are the words that I wrote about Paul Dudley White's 1951 observations . . . "the general causes of the condition appear to include such strains as worry over business, social, or family matters, emotional conflicts, physical or nervous fatigue, and exhaustion from acute infections or illnesses"

These are extracts of WhatamIdoing's blatant lies that were told to discredit me. . . "he's having trouble remembering that anxiety disorder is a functional disease of the nervous system, not a character flaw" here

Note also that WhatamIdoing has not provided a link to verify that ridiculous statemtent. Also note, that I have provided 65 references which cover all ideas on cause, including some which include anxiety in their title. Also note that anxiety disorders are generally regarded as ailments causd by anxiety, and are not necessarily just functional disorders. Also there are many other theories on the cause of functional disorders that do not necessarily include anxiery, or the nervous system.

More of WhatamIdoing's lies about me are evident in these words . . . "He comes by every week or two and adds bona fide medical publications on the subject -- but always and only those articles which support his particular views" here

Note that I have reported on all of the major ideas on cause.

There are more lies by WhatamIdoing with these words "And above all, why doesn't the history section rely on the history papers? They do exist, and a couple are even cited in passing. But Posturewriter has instead relied on his own interpretation of primary sources instead of basing the history section around good secondary sources that directly address the relevant history. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2009 here

Note that my list of references actually includes articles on the history of DCS by MacKenzie (1916), Caughey (1939), PDW (1950), Paul Wood(1956), Oblesby Paul (1987), and Wooley (2002) etc. who all gave their own reviews of the previous history at that time

More of WhatamIdoings lies are contained in these words . . . "We have an editor who appears to be struggling with Wikipedia's basic requirements for Verifiability and No original research for some time" here

All of the information can be verified by reading the 65 references that I provided and linked to the text. here

In the following quote WhatamIdoing is trying to create the false idea that I "forgot", or deliberately avoided discussion about the fact that there were some cases of DCS in the cavalry who had different uniforms to the infantry, or that military uniforms were redesigned to prevent compression of the chest, and didn't appear to reduce the incidence of DCS. However, I did not forget or evade anything, but was constantly told to be brief, and I did link to DaCosta's article for everyone to verify the information. Also, WhatamIdoing was DELIBERATELY "forgetting" and evading, and deleting information that tight corsets went out of fashion in the early 1900's for similar reasons, because of the proven harmful effects on health. Also, if WhatamIdoing wanted to be constructive, instead of disruptive, that matter could have been sensibly discussed and added later.

Here were WhatamIdoing's words about me . . ."I see that he also "forgot" to mention that DCS appeared in cavalry (with their non-restrictive clothing and gear) just as much as infantry (who complained about their belts), and that the British Army did a massive redesign of their gear specifically to prevent DCS -- and that it did not work". here

Note that in the Crimean War (1853-1856) some uniforms included tight collars called "chokers". There were newspaper cartoons at the time which joked about so many soldier's fainting on the battlefield because of their tight collars that the military surgeons should be provided with smelling salts to revive them. Needless to say, the military has made major changes to uniforms since then. Also, many nineteenth and early twentieth century magazines, including "Society" carried advertisements for the sale of male corsets with one being "The Carlton - a great favorite with military gentlement." Women who wore corsets at that time were renown for their frequent fainting, which they relieved by unlacing their corsets.

This is another quote from WhatamIdoing " Some people, for example, will stand up too quickly (there are many more triggers, but it makes a nice example) and end up temporarily unconscious on the floor. . . . Orthostatic intolerance is one of the major modern interpretations of DCS" here

Note that WhatamIdoing is arguing that the tendency to faint is called Orthostatic Intolerance which is one of the modern labels for Da Costa's syndrome, and that it has many triggers (causes), but is then trying to convince me and everyone else that tight waisted uniforms, and tight corsets are irrelevant to DCS. re: WhatamIdoing is just arguing for the sake of arguing, without caring about sensible discussion. I often get the impression that WhatamIdoing is being deliberately stupid to annoy me, but I just get amused.

More Evidence of WhatamIdoing's Lies and attempts to deceive other editors
13-1-08 Here were WhatamIdoing's words of 13-1-08 "I'd like to point out as well that this article is on my daily watchlist, and I suspect that it's on several other editors' lists for the same reason. I think you can rely on me promptly noticing future attempts to use this article to promote your theory . . . "I do appreciate your other efforts, but you need to quit adding your own research theories to this article" . . . WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2008 here

20-1-08 The account of Paul Dudley White's description of Da Costa's syndrome that remained at 20-1-08 which WhatamIdoing supposedly appreciated can be seen here
Note that the page only has 18 references.

I therefore started compiling the history of Da Costa's syndrome by reviewing articles that covered all of the major findings and ideas during the entire period from 1871 to 2009 from 60 different sources. Paul Dudley White's book was already included and more than half of the additional references were more recent than the 1960's as can be seen here

Those references were gradually added during a 12 month period and WhatamIdoing was fully aware of it.

11-1-09 WhatamIdoing wrote these words on the disruptive editing page "Posturewriter, the place to convince people that a 1951 book conforms with WP:MEDRS#Use_up-to-date_evidence for current medical and scientific information . . . is at WP:RSN" . . . WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2009 here

27-1-09 WhatamIdoing included this statement on the arbitration page . . ."Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount of attention to . . . seriously outdated materials (a 1951 textbook is cited thirty-four times in his preferred draft; a text from the 1950s is chosen because texts even as recent as the 1960s don't support his view" . . . WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 27 January 2009 here


Gordonofcartoon tells so many devious lies, in so many twisted ways, that it is difficult for readers to see the facts even though they should be obvious. He also chooses his words so that he can always find a way out. For example he says that there is no such thing as a comment made in favor of one of my edits, but he deliberately doesn't identify which edit he is talking about, and he says that I take things out of context, when in fact he or his tag-teamer put things out of context before making their allegations.

Here is a quote from a neutral editor named Avnjay about the subpage text that I provided as a replacement for the Da Costa's syndrome page.

"To be honest, in my opinion, it's actually a lot better and far more detailed than the one that is currently up . . . , Avnjay 10:51, 5 October 2008 here


Here are Gordonofcartoon's words four months later . . . 3-2-09 . . . "user A says at diff B that my version is wonderful", then you look at the diff and find user A said no such thing . . . or did but the quote is out of context of other editors saying it was crap". Gordonofcartoon 16:57, 3 February 2009

You can read the rest of Gordonofcartoons incessant lies and insults which are everywhere, including here

Note that Gordonofcartoon always worked as a tag team with WhatamIdoing, and used offensive foul language with the word "crap". He is referring to the fact that WhatamIdoing spent months relentlessly trying the dissuade Avnjay from co-operating with me by deliberately misrepresenting every word I wrote as nonsense, and every reference that I used as unreliable.



Gordonofcartoon was trying to be too clever for his own good because the fact that some very favorable words were written about my contributions in the context of some other unnamed editor who supposedly called it crap


and it does mean that Gordonofcartoon and the unnamed editor who used the word "crap" were both violating WP:CIVIL and several other guidelines.

My contributions to Wikipedia

Wikipedia invites all members of the public to contribute all useful information to broaden the range of knowledge available to it's readers, and it recommends that you should not worry too much about the rules because there are hundreds of them, and they are not carved in rock, but are merely guidelines to be applied with common sense, and if you do anything wrong an experienced editor will advise you on the finer points of policy.

I thought that it was perfectly reasonable to co-operate with another person to ensure that an account of my one thousand page book about the Posture Theory was concise and accurate, but that article was deleted on the 5th December 2007, presumably because I was unable to provide online proof that I actually did write a 1000 page book, and that I actually designed a research fitness programme to study the relation between exercise and chronic fatigue.

I also thought it was perfectly reasonable to add a small amount of information about that theory to a small page called Da Costa's syndrome, and to develop that article further because I knew a lot about it.

In the meantime I only added about one paragraph of information each, to only six other topic pages in two years. One of them contained my suggestion that one of the causes of the chronic fatigue syndrome could be poor posture, and that could be regarded as "original research", but all of the other information was factual, true, common sense, widely known, and easily verified by any intelligent editor who knew how to use the research literature.

As those contributions have been mercilessly criticised I have cut and pasted them below to discuss the comments.




My contributions to Wikipedia


March 24th 2007


The "Human position" page

It was my first contribution and I added some computer code to add my website to the external links section . . . "[]" - The code didn't work properly so it came out as link number 12


See here

and here

November 27th and 28th 2007


The "Chest pain" page

In the "Other Causes" section I added the words . . . "Stooped posture (kyphosis) - re: The Posture Theory - postural compression of the chest causes occasional sharp stabbing pains between the ribs, and chest muscle cramps"

On the following day I added a single link to the Wikipedia page about kyphosis


See here

and here

November 28th at 1:44 and 1:57 2007


The "Chronic fatigue syndrome" page

I added a paragraph of information but was still practicing the use of Wikipedias editing codes. The whole paragraph of words came out on one long line surrounded by dashes, so I had to correct the codes a few minutes later to give the following words in the correct format.


"Postural cause - The Posture Theory - It has been observed that many patient with CFS have stooped spines (kyphosis) and long, thin, narrow chests, or other chest wall deformities, and are more likely to be involved in sedentary rather than manual work. It has been proposed that leaning toward a desk with that physique, repetitively compresses the air and blood vessels in the chest and interferes with blood flow to the brain. Although that may intitially cause minor problems such as poor concentration and general tiredness, in the long term it can result in diminished efficiency of circulation and result in more chronic forms of fatigue, and ultimately impair the capacity for physical exertion. Other symptoms associated with that physique are backache, chest and abdominal pains, palpitations, breathlessness and faintness. Additional reference: P.Wood (1956) Diseases of the Heart and Circulation p.937-942 which includes a photo of a patient with that physique."


See here

and here

November 28th 2007 at 20:06 and 20:10


The "Kyphosis" page

I added the following small paragraph to the classification section of the Kyphosis page, however the text became mixed in with an image so I corrected the codes a few minutes later to produce plain text . . .


''Nutritional Kyphosis can result from nutritional deficiencies, especially during childhood, such as vitamin D deficiency producing rickets which softens bones and results in curving of the spine and limbs under the child's body weight. This can be due to dietary deficiency of vitamin D or lack of exposure to sunlight. Also any infectious illness in childhood which involves prolonged periods of nausea, vomiting, or poor apetite, can result in nutritional deficiency and weight loss, and loss of muscle bulk and tone, which leads to curvature of the spine. re: [[The Posture Theory]]"

The first sentence was still in Wikipedia three years later, on 29th December 2010, but if my main critic finds out that I put it there an anonymous editor will probably delete it.


See here

and here

and here

December 9th 2007 at 6:56 and 7:02

and December 2nd




and at 8:21, 8:23, and 8:26 on 29th July 2008


The "Varicose veins" page

The Causes section contained these words - "Varicose veins are more common in women than in men, and are linked with heredity[6]. Other related factors are pregnancy, obesity, menopause, aging, prolonged standing, leg injury"

So I edited and added the following words . . . "and the abdominal straining which occurs when emptying a constipated bowel. They are caused by any factor which impedes the flow of blood through the veins such as tight garters , where typically the varicosity occurs below the garter line on the leg, and not above it (ref.26)."

A few minutes later I added a single link to the Wikipedia page about garters.

I added a link to The Posture Theory two days later on 2nd December because my book has information and an illustration about varicose veins.


See here

and here

and here


Eight months later

About eight months later I was asked to edit pages other than Da Costa's syndrome and I found that the information that I added to the varicose veins page earlier had been deleted. One of the criticisms was that I linked to reference 26 which didn't exist, but it was probably "The Illustrated Family Doctor", published by "The Household Encyclopedia" in 1935, pages 691 to 693, which contained a useful illustration. Here is an additional quote from that book . . . "Another beneficial reform is the fairly general substitution of suspenders for garters." in other words the problem was widely known. Also the Household Encyclopedia would have been the social equivalent of a 1935 printed version of Wikipedia that was available internationally. The reason that reference 26 did not appear in the reference list is because I probably tried to add it but didn't know how to do it at that time. However, I added the same information back with a better reference as requested. It was reference number 6 "Cecil M.D., Russell L. (1951). The Specialties in General Practice. Philadelphia and London: W.B.Saunders Company. pp. 48" (at a time when garters were still in common use).

Two minutes later I corrected the name of the author of that reference.

Three minutes after that I amended the following sections of text and added some causes and prevention.


"Varicose veins are caused by anything that obstructs or partially restricts blood flow to the heart so that the blood dams up in the area of veins before the obstruction and ultimately become enlarged and twisted . . . The term commonly refers to the veins on the leg, where they can be caused by tight garters [1], although varicose veins occur elsewhere such as varicose veins in the rectum, which are called Hemorrhoids, where they may be a complication of pregnancy, because the weight of the womb presses on the lower abdominal veins and restricts blood flow from the rectal veins."

and . . .

"They are also related to any factor which compresses veins, such as tight garters [7] . Tight garters have previously been worn as part of the Boy Scout uniform here, [[7]], or military uniforms here [[8]]" . . .

I then added a new section called "Prevention" with these words - "One means of preventing varicose veins is to avoid factors which restrict blood flow through veins, such as by not wearing elastic leg garters that are too tight."


See here

and here

and here


A Summary to December 2007

Essentially, apart from the Posture Theory, and Da Costa's syndrome, I only contributed one paragraph each to six different topics, and five of them were made before December 2007.

I added the following information - The hunchback posture can be caused by poor diet, or poor nutrition, particularly vitamin D deficiency which causes rickets, or by prolonged viral illnesses that produce nausea, and a loss of appetite, and a loss of weight and muscle tone, especially during childhood.

I stated that poor posture could cause occasional stabbing pains and muscle cramps in the chest.

I also mentioned that anything which compresses veins, such as tight garters can block the flow of blood to cause varicose veins which bulge out below the garter line, and that the weight of the pregnant womb could put pressure on the rectal veins to cause hemorrhoids, which are varicose veins of the rectum.

I then added a section heading called "Prevention", and included the fact that one way of avoiding varicose veins is to not wear tight garters as part of uniforms.


I linked five of those additions to my own website before two editors made such a ridiculous fuss about it, but I also provided two references to Wikipedia articles about garters and kyphosis, and two external references, with the first to Paul Wood O.B.E., on the CFS page, and later to a book called "The Specialties in General Practice" by Russel L.Cecil, on the varicose veins page.


An infant with spinal deformity due to Rickets

Da CostaSyndPortrait

A portrait showing the typical physique of a patient with Da Costa's syndrome, and a comment from Paul Wood's text . . . Left sided chest pain . . . "may be initiated by . . . faulty posture".


Varicose veins caused by tight garters


A summary of the disputes

From what I can recall, I didn't know that the six items had been deleted until much later, and I certainly did't argue with anyone about it.

Also, when The Posture Theory was recommended for deletion, I responded to requests for information for about a week, by giving the names and dates of my publications etc., but the article was deleted anyway, and I didn't dispute the outcome, or request a review of the decision.

In fact, I didn't become involved in any sort of diputes until two editors started arguing with me in December about the topic of Da Costa's syndrome, and they were responosible for 99% of the arguments, reversions, and deletions since then.


My response to policy requirements as I found out about them

I was told about a policy in Wikipedia which recommends that editors don't link to their own website, because it might be seen as a conflict of interest, so I stopped, in about January 2008. I also found the MEDRS policy for medical articles which recommended that "primary sources", or articles by one person's studies are usually not acceptable because they are "original research", and that "secondary sources" or "reviews" of the medical topic are preferred, and that they should come from top quality independent peer-reviewed research journals, or top quality medical books by top authors..

I am familiar with how to find and evaluate the reliability of information, and how to find reliable references, so most of my existing and future references were "reviews" which eventually totaled more than sixty, and included articles by Sir James MacKenzie (1916), Sir Thomas Lewis (1919), Paul Wood O.B.E, (1956), and Harvard professors Paul Dudley White (1951), and Oglesby Paul, (1987) who were amongst the best in the entire history of the topic. See here



Six months later

One of the neutral editors named SmokeyJoe described my contributions as good quality with good references and diffs, which is what I was required to do. However, my main critic wrote the following words in an attempt to convince him that I was a disruptive editor and

that all of my contributions were worthless. It is typical of the hostile way that individual tried to argue against, and harass all of the editors who agreed with me or supported me.

My main critic wrote this to an editor named SmokeyJoe

"SmokeyJoe, excluding The posture theory, which has been entirely deleted, the editor has made 47 edits in the mainspace, involving exactly six articles. All of his contributions outside of Da Costa's syndrome have been reverted. Here's the complete list:

* Human position -- add his own website (where you can order his self-published book). It's removed as spam. (March 2007)
Chest pain -- add his personal theory. It's removed Nov 2007)
Chronic fatigue syndrome-- add his personal theory. It's removed within minutes. Repeat. Nov 2007)
Varicose veins -- add, and claim non-existant "ref.26". It's removed. (Dec 2007)
Kyphosis -- add his personal theory. It's removed. (Dec 2007)
Da Costa's syndrome -- Add his personal theory. Cite self. It's removed. Add personal website. It's removed. Add some history and parts of his personal theory. Cite favorite primary sources. It's heavily edited. Complain. Add exhaustive catalog of every single primary source that might support personal POV. It's deleted. Complain. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat

So given this information, would you say that this track record really constitutes "many non-trivial contributions"? How does "has had every single contribution outside of Da Costa's syndrome deleted, and has had practically every contributed sentence inside that article either deleted or substantially revised" strike you for accuracy? WhatamIdoing 23:50, 27 July 2008 " here


My other critic, named Gordonofcartoon, wrote the following words in an attempt to convince a new group of editors that I had been constantly arguing with dozens of other editors for two years . . . . "Desired outcome: "A topic ban on Da Costa's syndrome and any medical topics where Posturewriter is seen inserting information into article space that supports his Posture Theory, and for Posturewriter to understand the WP:NOR policy and cease the disruptive patterns of editing and discourse on Talk pages - with a community ban per WP:DE if the latter doesn't happen or starts up in other topics.
Description: Posturewriter began contributing in 2007, creating an article on his own theory, The posture theory, which was deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/the Posture Theory in December 2007. He immediately began a pattern of single purpose account edits at Da Costa's syndrome. Self-promotional edits at Chronic fatigue syndrome and Da Costa's syndrome led to warnings from JFW [2], Gordonofcartoon [3] and WhatamIdoing[4] signed by Gordonofcartoon 18:16, 20 July 2008 See here


Twelve months later

In order to create the illusion that I had been disrupting the entire Wikipedia community, every day, for two years, Gordonofcartoon wrote the following words to a new group of editors in January 2009 . . .


"I'm asking for Arbitration attention - ideally a topic ban, covering disruption/harassment on Talk and dispute resolution pages - on grounds of Posturewriter exhausting community patience: this involves a classic example of the behaviours described in Wikipediia: Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing." See here


My main critic, named WhatamIdoing, then attempted to reinforce that argument by creating the false impression that I had been disruptive to every topic that I had been involved with in the past, by concluding with these words . . .


"I think that a broad topic ban (including Da Costa's syndrome, Chronic fatigue syndrome, Varicose veins, and any articles even slightly related to human posture, fitness, or fatigue) is an appropriate outcome." WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009 See here

I was banned from Wikipedia the next day.


See a fuller report on their deletion editing here

One of the items of information that was kept


My version of the Da Costa's syndrome article included these words . . .

"Da Costa's Syndrome is a disorder with a set of symptoms that include left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, faintness, dizziness and fatigue occurring exclusively in response to physical exertion in some patients[1], but in most cases the symptoms occur to a lesser degree at other times. Between 1864 and 1868 a British government committee met to study heart disease in soldiers and attributed its cause to the heavy weight of military equipments being carried in knapsacks which were tightly strapped to the chest in a manner which constricted the action of the heart. [20] In 1870 Arthur Bowen Myers of the Coldstream Guards also regarded the accoutrements as the cause of the trouble, which he called neurocirculatory asthenia and cardiovascular neurosis, and recommended soldiers be allowed to open their jackets" (end of quote)


Each of my two critics took turns deleting my version of the article and replaced it with a much smaller version, but it still included information which was 'copied' from me by Gordonofcartoon who wrote these words . . .


"Da Costa's syndrome involves a set of symptoms which include left-sided chest pains, palpitations, breathlessness, and fatigue in response to exertion. Earl de Grey who presented four reports on British soldiers with these symptoms between 1864 and 1868, and attributed them to the heavy weight of military equipment being carried in knapsacks which were tightly strapped to the chest in a manner which constricted the action of the heart . . . In 1870 Arthur Bowen Myers of the Coldstream Guards also regarded the accoutrements as the cause of the trouble, which he called neurocirculatory asthenia and cardiovascular neurosis.[16][17] (end of quote)


The reason that they kept those words is because they were accurate, and are essential to understanding the problem, and it is one of the important known causes which is essential in attempts to prevent and, or manage the symptoms.

Here are some facts. Tight chest straps contribute to chest pains, and restrict the expansion of the chest and compress the lungs to cause breathlessness, and tight waist straps impede the downward movement of the diaphragm to cause shallow breathing. When soldiers were marching up and down hills for up to twenty days in a row, and their breathing was inefficient they were inhaling less oxygen with each breath, and becoming more easily exhausted, and some of them became severely and chronically exhausted, and required hospitalisation for fatigue.

If the information about tight waist belts and chest straps had been deleted the article would be negligent, inferior, and to some degree useless and worthless to the readers of Wikipedia.


This is what my main critic told other editors

"I see that he also "forgot" to mention that DCS appeared in cavalry (with their non-restrictive clothing and gear) just as much as infantry (who complained about their belts), and that the British Army did a massive redesign of their gear specifically to prevent DCS -- and that it did not work." signed WhatamIdoing 17:27, 6 October 2008


This is what my main critic told the arbitrators on 27th January 2009 to get me banned


"Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount of attention to concepts that were rapidly discarded (restrictive clothing causes DCS: rejected by J.M. Da Costa himself and not seriously entertained by anyone except Posturewriter himself for a century now)" signed WhatamIdoing 04:42, 28 January 2009



The question that intelligent people need to ask is this . . . If tight chest straps did not contribute to the symptoms then why did Gordonofcartoon rewrite the words and mention it in his preferred version, and why did my other critic leave them there, and why are those words still unchanged two years later, and why hasn't any other editor gone to that page and stated that it is wrong, or that it has been disproven, and why don't they delete it.

My two critics couldn't remove that information, and they actually didn't remove it. They just told the arbitrators and everyone else lies to get me banned.


See my version placed on 25th January 2009 here's_syndrome&diff=266273949&oldid=262846727#1863-1899

See Gordonofcartoon's much smaller replacement version 8 hours later here's_syndrome&diff=266326592&oldid=266275464#History

Those words were still in the article unchanged two years later on 6th October 2010, and up to 14th January here

See WhatamIdoing's comments to Avnjay here

See my main critics comments on the arbitration page here

The criticism of my references

At the beginning of World War 1 the British government was so concerned about the problem of Da Costa's syndrome that they appointed the best medical researchers in the country to study it. They included Sir James MacKenzie, and Thomas Lewis who was knighted for his contributions to the subject. Paul Dudley White assisted Lewis and later became emeritus professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, and included a chapter on the topic in his 1951 reference book. Another Harvard professor, named Oglesby Paul, who met him, wrote his biography.

My main critic tried to confuse other editors by writing a lot of nonsense about everything so I have extracted some quotes to show the obvious discrepancies.


That editor wrote . . . "Da Costa's syndrome . . . is . . . a vague 19th century syndrome, generally considered a psychosomatic anxiety disorder). It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article." signed WhatamIdoing 02:25, 18 May 2008


and . . . Postuewriters text is full of statements like "In 1916 Sir James MacKenzie chaired a major medical conference aimed at gaining a better understanding of the condition", when in fact it wasn't a "major" medical conference, and it wasn't "aimed" at anything in particular: it was just another normal meeting of the Therapeutics subsection of the Royal Society of Medicine. MacKenzie read a paper (Back in the day, that's how all scientific papers were published: you joined a society, showed up at a meeting, read your paper to the assembled members, and answered their questions. If you did this, your paper was then printed in the society's Proceedings)." signed WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009


and . . . "Posturewriter . . . " lists the same thoroughly outdated (1951!) textbook eighteen separate times." signed WhatamIdoing 16:15, 5 October 2008


and . . . "We don't blather on about "In 1987 prominent Harvard researcher Oglesby Paul presented a ten page history of Da Costa's syndrome in the British Heart Journal..." This is an effort to tell the reader "You have to believe everything I say that this guy said. He's important. You should know his name. He published in a decent journal." Paul's paper was a routine review paper.". signed WhatamIdoing 20:05, 19 October 2008


See here
syndrome . . . and here

and here


As you can see my main critic told lies to as many other editors and administrators as possible at every opportunity.

See more details here'sSyndWikiwebpagel.html#LiesaboutMedrsOutofDateEvidence

The biggest pest in Wikipedia

My main critic admitted to using 'attitude readjustment tools'. Such practices are deliberately used to incite and inflame negative responses from other editors and in Wikipedia individuals who try to resolve disputes like that are called trolls.

This is a quote from the Wikipedia essay about trolls . . . "Trolling is any deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia."

See here

and here


The request for dozens of [citation needed], and other verification for facts that had already been provided

If I wrote an essay with 34 important facts, and supported it at the end of the page with one reference by the best author in the entire history of the topic, my main critic would typically try to annoy me by adding the words [citation needed] at the end of each of those 34 widely known facts. I would then respond to those requests by adding a numbered link next to each of those 34 statements, as well as adding several more which I used from my expanding list of top quality independent references.


However, on 5th October 2008, my main critic made this comment to another editor named Avnjay . . .

"Avnjay . . . "I realize that you're not competent in the subject matter, but an editor of your experience should have noticed that he doesn't use 97 different sources. For example, he lists the same thoroughly outdated (1951!) textbook eighteen separate times. There are in fact only 24 references" signed WhatamIdoing 16:15, 5 October 2008


About three months later, on the 27th January 2009, when my list included more than sixty references, that same individual made the following remark to another group of editors who were new to the dispute . . .

"Posturewriter dedicates an inordinate amount of attention to . . . a 1951 textbook . . . cited thirty-four times" signed WhatamIdoing 20:25, 27 January 2009


(Note that my main critic was being uncooperative by leaving the reference list with 97 different entries, but Avnjay assisted me by changing the referencing codes so that the 24 numbered references to Paul Dudley White were reduced to one entry with an alphabetical row in front for each usage i.e. instead of 24 entries, it became one reference (number 4) which looked like this . . .

"4. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah White, Paul Dudley (1951) Heart Disease. New York, New York: MacMillan. pp. 578-591")

Note also that if I asked my two critics to actually read the references that I provided before criticising them I would get a response like this . . .

"We are only volunteers and we are busy editing hundreds of other more important articles, so we don't have time to to read your references about this insignificant topic, and we don't have to if we don't want to".


See a version of the essay that I wrote with 24 references and my main critic adding [citation needed], and [original research], and [neutrality disputed] and [unreliable source] and [out of date] and [verification needed] after almost every fact that I stated, and also added the words [formatting wrong] to every date that was presented in bold print on 5th October 2008 here

See my main critic telling Avnjay, on 5th October 2008, that I used the same reference 18 times here

See the complete list of 61 references that I eventually provided by 26th January 2009 here

See my main critic telling a group of arbitration editors, on 28th January 2009, that I used the same reference 34 times here


How my two critics twisted the truth to get me banned


After being criticised relentlessly for more than six months, I wrote an essay about the motives and tactics of my two critics, and within a short time they were seeking revenge. They set up several discussions on multiple talk pages in an attempt to get that essay deleted and me blocked from the Da Costa's page. These included my own UserTalk page, "Wikiquette Alerts", "Miscellany for deletion", "RFC dispute and talk pages, an Administrators Noticeboard, a Reliable sources noticeboard. and an arbitration page etc. They worked together and made sure that one or both of them dominated and controlled every argument. I joined those discussions for the purpose of defending myself.


However, in the RFC discussion a neutral editor named SmokeyJoe suggested that the dispute could be settled if we each wrote a separate essay on the topic outside of Wikipedia, and then put them back for neutral editors to merge into one "neutral point of view" article. Another editor named Avnjay joined the discussion and made virtually the same suggestion. Gordonofcartoon bluntly refused to co-operate with that proposal, and WhatamIdoing said and did nothing about it, but I started writing an essay and completed it within the next few weeks. I posted it back into Wikipedia, and several months later, used it to replace the existing Da Costa's page. It was predictable that my two critics would take turns reverting it and try to get me banned.


In their attempts to get me banned Gordonofcartoon twisted the truth around his grubby little fingers, in a discussion which was viewed by other editors, and attempted to make himself look like the innocent good guy who didn't know what was happening, and me look like the guilty bad guy who was being unco-operative and disruptive.


The following words are an extract from one of the discussions, but I have removed some of the comments which they included to confuse other editors . . .

At 7:54 on 25th January I wrote . . . "There has been no activity on that subpage since 30-11-08 here[36], and although there has been some criticism from one editor, that has also ceased. There has been no criticism from NPOV’s, and another NPOV named SmokeyJoe has recently stated - “silence is consensus”. I have therefore decided to move the text from the subpage to replace the article page text." Posturewriter 07:54, 25 January 2009

About 8 hours later Gordonofcartoon responded with these words . . . "Reverted to prior version . . .There was no general invitation to write separate drafts: Posturewriter chose to do so unilaterally, without guidance from medical editors, and making it abundantly clear that some existing editors were unwelcome. I don't know about others, but I've not commented on it for that reason and because it was clearly happening outside Wikipedia's normal collective editorial process" Gordonofcartoon 15:50, 25 January 2009

On the following day I wrote these words . . . "Gordonofcartoon; Please stop telling lies. You were fully aware of the subpage suggestion by Avnjay in the seventh paragraph here[37] and another recommendation by SmokeyJoe at 11:18 on 8-8-08 who wrote “If you want to create a userspace version of an article (such as Da Costa’s syndrome), get it perfected, and then seek to replace the existing article, then go for it” here[38]. and you did comment on it at 16:30 on the same day when you wrote "No, I'm fed up with this" here[39] Posturewriter 07:21, 26 January 2009

Gordonofcartoon replied eleven hours later . . . "I had no recollection of any general invitation, and certainly wouldn't have supported the idea unless it were a generally open draft (not a private sandbox only open to you and friendly editors). I don't read everything - especially with disputes spread over multiple pages - and by that time it looks as if my attention was drifting with the deluge of obfuscation". Gordonofcartoon 18:34, 26 January 2009


On the following day WhatamIdoing posted this note . . .Posturewriter had been blocked for COI violations and edit warring. He's not usually active on weekdays,, so we'll presumably be able to take this up next weekend. I've reverted to the previous version . . . For the record, I believe that a choice to re-insert his strongly disputed and seriously unbalanced text without explicit support on this talk page by at least one established editor other than Posturewriter will be considered further edit warring and likely earn him another block. I hope that he will be willing to talk instead of to edit war. WhatamIdoing 18:27, 27 January 2009

An administrator, named Moreschi wrote this the next day . . . "Posturewriter is banned. Apologies for not getting round to this sooner. Moreschi 15:45, 28 January 2009


See that full discussion here


See my essay about their motivations and tactics here'sSynd%20Wikiwebpa2.html#anchor5667


Criticism of my Research Project

See an account of the IFRS research project here


When I designed a research project for The South Australian Institute for Fitness Research and Training in 1982 I was aware that other researchers had reported that patients with chronic fatigue "would not or could not train" for long enough to get meaningful data about the cause of their aliment, or their response to exercise.

I knew that the design would be successful because it took into account that the patients had a real physical limitation, and that as long as they stayed within their exercise limits they would be able to participate.

I also wrote the design principles with sufficient detail that any researcher anywhere in the world could duplicate the methods - which is exactly what original research projects are supposed to do - make designs so that the results can be independently verified and confirmed as true in multiple studies.

I also knew that anyone who tried to run a training programme without taking those limitations into account would not succeed because the volunteers would exceed their limits, experience the symptoms. lose confidence in the organisers, and drop out of the course.


I therefore knew that my training principles would be copied. This is a quote from part of the design . . .

"Neurasthenic exercise principles:
(a) no sprinting or accelerating
(b) no heavy lifting or strenuous work
(c) gradually improvement (allowing for fluctuations)
(d) work at own level with pulse 120/140 bpm even if this means periodically reducing performance
(e) if overexercise occurs and the volunteer appears distressed by faintness and dizziness, he should stop exercise and alternately pace about and rest and take deep breathe until recovering, but may continue to feel some distress for a while.

See here


The success of the programme was reported in at least four major Australian state newspapers, the Adelaide "News", the "West Australian", the "Sydney Morning Herald", and the "Brisbane Courier". Although the exact details were not mentioned, and the results were not published in research journals, there would have been members of the Institute who would have discussed it in the normal course of meetings with other colleagues, and something so successful at dealing with a common problem would have become widely known in the relevant research community around the world.


When I started contributing to Wikipedia, more than 25 years later, I added the following information at 5:58 on 18-12-2007. . .


"From 1982-1983, researchers at the South Australian Institute For Fitness Research and Training examined more than 80 volunteers with persistent fatigue and found similar results, and a training programme was designed on the basis that they would participate if they kept within their own limits and improved at their own rate. Eleven who didn't train were examined 6 months later with no significant change. Ten completed three months training of 2 hours per night twice per week, and six completed six months or more. Three cases improved but plateaud after three months below 600 kgm/min, and 3 of those who were initially recorded as below 400 kgm/min showed significant improvement. Twelve months after starting the training programme one of the participants entered a six mile marathon and completed it. Although the results were not published in medical journals the general findings were reported in several Australian newspapers."

See here


Soon after that two editors started arrogantly referring to that study as not being notable because it wasn't published in the 'real' medical literature and at 0:54 on 29th December 2007 an editor named Gordonofcartoon deleted it with the explanation "(→After 1950: remove exposition of NN Banfield material)". They also said that the information took up undue space, so I abbreviated it and put it back but they ignored my explanation and became more offensive and deleted it again, and continued to be critical and hostile for the next 12 months even though I didn't mention that research again.


While they were criticising me I was watching the events with interest, and noticed that there were some co-incidental changes being made to pages on the same topic of chronic fatigue, but using different labels, and that there were additions and deletions of similar information from different sources on other topic pages such as the "Chronic Fatigue Syndrome".


I also found that since I did my successful study, there have been at least 3000 research programmes investigating an exercise programme called "Graded Exercise Training", and "Pacing". When I looked at those studies I found that they were using exactly the same principles that I developed in 1982.


When I added such information to Wikipedia I had two critics who were deleting it on the basis of it being non-notable, nonsense, and crap, and that it was 'wrong'.

However, I knew that if they didn't provide the information somewhere that Wikipedia would be useless to readers who had this problem, so I maintained a casual interest in what they would do, and this is a small example of what happened.


This is a quote from the Treatment section, and the Graded exercise therapy sub-section as at 05:57 on 12 January 2011.

Many patients do not fully recover from CFS even with treatment, and there is no universally effective curative option.[62] Diets, physiotherapy, dietary supplements, antidepressants, pain killers, pacing, and complementary and alternative medicine have been suggested as ways of managing CFS. Cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) have shown moderate effectiveness for many patients in multiple randomized controlled trials.[29][63][64][65] As many of the CBT and GET studies required patients to visit a clinic, severely affected patients may have been excluded.[63] Patient surveys have indicated that pacing is reported to be the most helpful intervention.[66][67]

Graded exercise therapy
Graded exercise therapy (GET) is a form of physical therapy. A meta-analysis published in 2004 of five randomized trials found that patients who received exercise therapy were less fatigued after 12 weeks than the control participants, and the authors cautiously conclude that GET shows promise as a treatment.[75] A systematic review published in 2006 included the same five RCTs, noting that "no severely affected patients were included in the studies of GET".[63] Surveys conducted on behalf of patient organizations commonly report adverse effects.[24][73][76][77]
To avoid detrimental effects from GET, care must be taken to avoid the exacerbation of symptoms while catering the program to individual capabilities and the fluctuating nature of symptoms.[78]

Pacing is an energy management strategy which encourages behavioural change while acknowledging patient fluctuations in symptom severity and delayed exercise recovery. Patients are advised to set manageable daily activity/exercise goals and balance activity and rest to avoid over-exertion which may worsen symptoms. Those able to function within their individual limits are encouraged to gradually increase activity and exercise levels while maintaining established energy management techniques. The goal is to gradually increase the level of routine functioning of the individual.[79] A small randomised controlled trial concluded that pacing had statistically better results than relaxation/flexibility therapy.[80][81] A survey of 828 Norwegian CFS patients found that pacing was evaluated as useful by 96% of participants.[76]"

See here



As you can see, my exercise programme was conducted at a formal research institute over a period of two years, and was widely reported as successful throughout Australia, and probably internationally, and has been duplicated in thousands of studies in the thirty years since, and the same principles are now in the Wikipedia article about the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome.

However my two critics told the other editors of Wikipedia that i wrote fringy nonsense, and one of them misrepresented me as making stupid statements by saying 'you can't fix nerves by lifting weights', and after I was banned, the other one was arguing about how much trouble he had in the past with editors who were 'promoting' 'beef brained' exercise schemes.

They were both ridiculous liars.

Defamation of my theory - and the straw man arguments

There are many symptoms and illnesses for which there has not been a logical explanation until I wrote my theory. Such ailments are caused by poor posture and therefore have a mechanical cause, and or actual damage, but it cannot be detected by blood tests or x-rays etc.

A common way of accounting for them in the past is by using a process called 'diagnosis by default', which essentially means that if you don't know the cause, then use the most commonly accepted diagnosis even if it is not correct. The most popular default diagnosis is to say that there is no physical cause so it must be all in the mind. Hence the most popular thing to do is to say that the condition is hypochondria which means that it involves imaginary symptoms. Nowadays the label of hypochondria is seen as offensive so it has been replaced by the word 'somatoform' which means symptoms which appear to be in the body (soma), but are actually in the mind.

Many diseases that have previously been labeled as imaginary have since been scientifically proven wrong because advances in technology, such as x-rays, have shown the real cause which have always existed but were previously invisible to the eye.

The posture theory provides an explanation and evidence that many of those theories of imaginary cause were wrong, but people who support those ideas obviously don't want to admit it and will say and do whatever they can to make the posture theory look ridiculous.

The book title was "The Posture Theory" and the sub-title was "Some additional considerations, illustrated 11th edition, The physical basis for hypochondria", and the text presents the logical and sensible suggestion that poor posture causes symptoms that were wrongly diagnosed as imaginary.

People who don't understand the book, and those who deliberately misrepresent it, and who want to subject it to mockery, will argue that it is about poor posture causing imaginary symptoms.

They want to leave the impression that you can't cause imaginary symptoms with poor posture, and that anyone who says that you can is a fool.

Their method of spin is called a 'straw man argument'. That sly truth twisting tactic works like this . . .

1. I am an intelligent person with a logical idea that is supported by 1000 pages of evidence.

2. They can't argue with me on the basis of facts

3. They invent a straw man who is a stupid fool who argues that poor posture causes imaginary symptoms

4.They then leave the false impression that I am a fool and that my theory is not worth reading.


This is a fact - the person who writes a deliberately false version of the idea is a fool.


Many people have used The Posture Theory in a manner that it consistent with its true meaning.

However, anyone who uses the diagram to argue that the symptoms are trivial or imaginary is misrepresenting it. An example can be seen on a page called 'Somatization disorder' here

I would like the owners of that website to delete that article and ban the person who wrote it.


Deleting and discrediting The Posture Theory

And their essay on Posture (psychology)

While I was adding information to an article in Wikipedia called Da Costa's syndrome, two other editors, were deleting it, and filling the page with links to psychological labels, and after trying to block me for having a conflict of interest in posture ideas, they banned me, and the top of the discussion page was provided with advise that the article was within the scope of WikipProject Psychology.

About two years later, on 13-1-11, shortly after I started updating my website with more information about posture and health, an editor named Penbat started a brand new page in Wikipedia called "Posture (psychology)" which became the top item in their link page to every article about posture. That brand new page contained a very large article which is described as a translation from Polish into English. It is presented with illustrations of postures and corsets and military uniforms, and interpretations of how they appear to reflect a state of mind, and looks like a convenient response to my website, and my articles in Wikipedia, and my criticism of the two Wikipedia's editors who called themselves 'WhatamIdoing', and 'Gordonofcartoon'.

(The illustrations of postures, corsets, and military uniforms look like pantomime copies of the ones on my website, except that the explanations have been twisted into a psychological interpretation. Those categories of illustrations have been in my books and on my website for more than ten years.)

See here

and compare their choice of illustrations to my webpage by scrolling down quickly from here and here


The following quote comes from Penbat's Userpage "This user's favorite subject is Psychology".

Needless to say, if the same standards were applied, then that editor should be banned for conflict of interest, and the article should be deleted, but I noticed that some of the editors don't seem to give a dam about 'double standards'.


There would be many editors in Wikipedia who have a genuine interest in psychology, but also many who would want to ensure all evidence of a physical cause of poor posture and illness is deleted and replaced with the general impression that psychological factors such as depression (sadness) cause a person to slump with despondency, or that pride, personality, or strength of character determine how they sit or stand, and they could find many opinions, and anecdotes for that interpretation.

One of the arguments is that people slouch when they are tense or depressed, but that overlooks the obvious fact that they also slouch when the are happy, and all of their muscles and ligaments are relaxed.

It is apparent to me that some of the editors in Wikipedia are not just intent on deleting all evidence of a physical cause of such things, but that they are trying to compete with my ideas.

i.e. They deleted information related to posture and Da Costa's syndrome, and filled the page with psychological explanations, and they deleted everything about The Posture Theory and health, and have now provided one about the psychological influences on posture.

They appear to be deliberately deleting information about poor diet and illness being the cause of poor posture and that poor posture is the cause of health problems, and loading Wikipedia with ideas about psychological factors being the cause of poor posture, and psychological factors being the cause of health problems. In other words giving undue weight to their argument.


If they prevail, then nobody will be doing anything useful in the aspect of prevention, and many of your children and grand children will grow up with spinal deformities, and the illnesses that follow, and the psychiatric labels that come their way in great numbers

All parents, and grand parents, and school teachers, and responsible adults should be on my side in this obvious dispute.

I wrote my theory, and my 1000 page book of evidence primarily to prevent such problems from happening to millions of children in the future, but I am only one person, and there is a role to be played by anyone and everyone inside and outside of Wikipedia who can see merit in supporting the ideas.

I get the distinct impression that if you just sit back and wait for me to deal with this matter all on my own, nothing will change.

While I was in Wikipedia my two critics wrote thousands of words of criticism and set up more than ten discussion pages in an attempt to get hundreds of editors to support them, but it took them a year to get me banned, which was the result they wanted. An example of their discussion about me being number 1 on the top of a series of 100 other discussions that prevailed for several months can be seen by looking at their table of contents here.


However, now I am banned and their pages about Posture, and Da Costa's syndrome are number 1 on the Google search engine, whereas before me they were nothing.


Incidentally, at the age of nineteen I was offered three scholarships to study group psychology at tertiary level - The South Australian Institute of Technology, now incorporated with the University of South Australia. One of the topics of study was 'creativity", another was 'conformity', and another was "change", namely - the 'resistance to change'.

If anyone else wants to study 'resistance to change' then you don't have to look any further than this dispute.

See more about the cause and effect issue here


Posture is a very minor aspect of "Body language"?

I developed the idea that poor posture could cause chest pains more than thirty years ago, and found a painting in a top quality medical book that showed a patient with poor posture, and the text had a similar comment about poor posture being the cause, so it was verification of the idea.

It was probably more than twenty years ago when I was walking along a city street and saw a group of people sitting at a bus stop waiting for their bus to arrive. Naturally, because of my interest in the topic of posture, I noticed that each of them had a different posture so I stopped and made some casual observations.

The main thing that caught my eye was a large woman in the middle who was slouched over and appeared to be struggling to breath. Her head and shoulders rose and fell with each breath. She was overweight so her upper body would have been quite heavy, and that would have been the cause of her problem because the broad breathing muscle at the base of the chest contracts to move downwards when inhaling, and relaxes to move upwards when exhaling.

With the weight of her head and shoulders pressing down on her lungs the breathing muscle wouldn't be able to relax fully, and hence would not move the full distance upwards, so she wouldn't be getting a full breath each time she breathed in. Consequently she would become breathless and need to force her breathing to get extra breath when she inhaled. That woman was looking somewhat exhausted by the effort.

One of the other individuals had a very good upright posture and was breathing effortlessly.

Similarly I found a book which showed an illustration of the internal anatomy of a woman who had worn corsets all her life, and i assumed she would have the same health problems that I had attributed to the mechanical pressure of poor posture, and I later bought that book and confirmed the idea.

I have also reported the idea that Plato's men were broad shouldered and deep chested and square, and mentioned that children who develop good posture will grow up to become healthy and successful in sport and business, and that those with poor posture will tend to be sickly, and miserable because of all of their symptoms, and may struggle to compete with others.

You can view my choice of illustrations by scrolling down the main page here



If you have a look at the illustrations in the new Wikipedia article about "Posture (psychology)" which I have cut and pasted to the right, you can see a picture of a sad man with a slouch, and some pictures of women wearing corsets, and two successful politicians with straight spines and good posture, and a picture of four women sitting at a bus stop, but all of their actions are interpreted in terms of character, personality, attitude, emotional, psychological, or social aspects such as confidence, sense of security, and mental states of anxiety, fear or submissiveness etc. See here

Needless to say - the correct, and proper, and only sensible way of discussing all of those issues, and to avoid any suspicion of plagiarism, or attempts to counteract, discredit, or undermine my theory, would be to include all of their information in a sub-section of their existing page called "Body Language" because that page is relevant to that issue, and much of the information is already there. see here

That article could have been prompted by my main critic contacting associates in Poland by email, and arranging for it to be completed before someone else would notice it and translate it back into English. It looks like a plan to evade accusations of deliberately trying to subvert my theory. However, there must be tens of millions of illustrations about posture and health and they should

have found a completely different type and selection that don't look like a pathetic attempt at discrediting my theory about poor posture and corsets etc causing health problems by compressing the internal organs.

In fact none of their references or books in their bibliography have Posture in the title, but the list does include 'body language', 'interpersonal relations, 'non-verbal communications' etc.

A small number of the editors also appear to be "pushing their point of view" by having a page title of "Posture" that doesn't contain any information about posture, but includes a list links to pages related to posture. it is not in alphabetical order, and "Posture (psychology)" was put in the position of most prominence at the top, when in fact, it is the most recent item and should be placed last. That tactic was used on the Da Costa's syndrome page where my two critics tried to give emphasis to military ailments by moving a link to a children's story called "Soldier's heart" from the end of the page to the top line. See here


Additional comments

The most common use of the word posture is in relation to good or bad posture (of the body). Discussing posture in any other context is producing ambiguities that will create confusion about the simple fact that human posture is an entirely physical topic that requires a sensible understanding of the obvious physical causes - all other factors are at best trivial by comparison, or more likely effects than causes.


Here is a comparison to think about. I have provided illustrations and scientific evidence to show that poor posture, tight corsets, and tight belts in military uniforms all have the same effect of compressing the chest and abdominal organs to cause health problems. One of the references in my 1000 page book is called "Mother Nature and the Moloch of fashion (1874)". It discusses how nineteenth century women wore fashionable corsets which compressed their waste so tight that many medical experts of the time regarded it as a cause of hundreds of different illnesses. it provided a four page list of ailments caused by corsets.

In fact other books describe how only the anatomist could see the effect by cutting open corpses and seeing how such garments compressed and twisted everything inside.

I provided 300 illustrations to show how poor posture and corsets alter the shape of internal anatomy.


The new Wikipedia article presents the idea that men slouch because they are unhappy, women wear corsets to look pretty, and soldier's wear trim uniforms and tight belts to look authoritarian. They don't show what is happening on the inside of their bodies, and, as an article about health, it is completely and utterly useless. If they added such information it would be in breech of my copyright and plagiarism of my ideas.


If they combine all information about posture across ten different pages in Wikipedia they are essentially just copying something that I have already done. Combined all information about posture and health, from all sources, and put it in the one place. I expect them to continue copying because they appear to be brazen and completely and utterly shameless and totally devoid of ethics.


Interpretation and education

Some people will look at a person who is slouched and assume that their muscles are loose and relaxed because the individual is happy and relaxed, whereas others will interpret exactly the same posture as a sign of the opposite states of tension and sadness. Similarly, some people will see a man who stands tall and broad with a straight spine, and think that he is respectable and proud, whereas others will think he is a pretentious and pompous fool who is making a flowery display of himself by prancing around as if he has a steel rod stuck up his back. Nevertheless those are both shallow views because, as they say, you cannot judge a person by appearances, any more than you can judge a book by it's cover.

However, regardless of how things are interpreted, if you are a parent or teacher, and you can ensure that you children grow up with a good knowledge of good posture, and how to comfortably achieve that, then you will most probably see them grow up to be healthy and successful. By contrast, if you leave them to grow up any which way, according to random circumstances, then they could become slouched, sickly, and miserable adults. It won't matter how confident or proud or happy they are, because they will still be beset by numerous health problems if their posture is poor.

see also here


Using my main critics style of argument against other editors

You could be excused for believing some of the nonsense that my two critics wrote about me because they told lies about almost everything. However, subjecting other editors to similar hostile criticism may shed some light on their manipulative arguments.

For example, in my discussions I was being polite in compliance with the civility policy, and I was using references from independent authors in compliance with MEDRS sourcing policy. However my two critics still invented a way of finding fault with that by setting up a Civil/POVpushing page to get me blocked. Essentially they were accusing me of being Civil (polite), while POV pushing (pushing my point of view). See here

I would therefore like you to read their Civil/POVpushing arguments by substituting my ID and Da Costa's syndrome for the ID of Penbat, and Psychology.

Also, my two critics managed to persuade a sports editor to pass judgment on an RFC discussion where he advised me not to add any more information to the Da Costa's topic. I assume that he knew nothing about the history of medicine, and that they didn't tell him that I was invited to write an essay outside of Wikipedia in order to resolve the issue, which meant that he was making a decision while the discussion was still active, which is a violation of RFC closing policy. i.e. They deliberately deceived him in two ways in order to get him to block me. I therefore recommend substituting Wizardman's ID for mine as well etc.

(Penbat was interested in psychology, and Wizardman was writing the biographies of every baseball player who hit a home run in the past 150 years)


The following three paragraphs are what my two critics wrote about me, followed by the same words used about Penbat and Psychology, and then about Wizardman and baseball . . .


1. About me . . . "We have identified a single-purpose account, run by an identifiable individual who "just happens" to have a non-mainstream take on a particular set of symptoms . . . he decided to hang his idea on the peg of "Da Costa's syndrome" (a vague 19th century syndrome) . . . It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article . . . the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles, like Meningitis or Mental health."

and substitute these words . . .

2. About Penbat . . . "We have identified a single-purpose account, run by an identifiable individual who "just happens" to have an interest in the psychological aspects of everything . . . , he decided to hang his idea on the peg of "psychology" (a vague 19th century idea). It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article . . . Considering the basic priorities, the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles, like Meningitis or Pimples"


3. About Wizardman . . .:We have identified a single-purpose account, run by an identifiable individual who "just happens" to have a quaint interest in out-of-date sporting achievements . . . he decided to hang his idea on the peg of "baseball" (a vague 19th century pastime, generally considered a little out doorsy hobby). It's overall an unimportant article for Wikipedia, so we can't justify investing several editors' time and energy into turning it into a little gem of an article and discrediting his personal views. Considering the basic priorities, the goal for this article is to have it not actually be actively wrong while we deal with more important articles, like football and synchronised swimming."

You can then continue the substitution until you have finished reading their two comments.


At this stage i am still willing to 'assume good faith' in Penbat, and Wizardman, and apologise if their has been any misunderstanding, but I am not willing to 'assume good faith' in my two critics because they told a massive number of lies and don't deserve it. They should be permanently banned.

See also here'sSyndWikiwebpage4.html#GuideToMercilessEditing

An objective and concise review of The Posture Theory

A concise review of The Posture Theory was provided to Wikipedia in mid 2007 and later deleted but was cut and pasted by an anonymous editor into a website named Wikibin, and can be seen here


A Critical view of The Posture Theory

in The Australian Skeptic Magazine Vol.20 no.1 Autumn 2000 p.60-63 see here
My response to that review can be seen on Vol.21 no.4 p.63-64 here 

When I checked the Skeptics website in November 2009, the review of the 8th edition of my book, and my response had been removed. However in December 2009 I noticed a redirect to the website of another journal called "Investigator" 63 November 1998 here


Note that in his concluding remarks the reviewer suggests that it is 'fairly unlikely" that the compression of the internal organs has any effect on them because they are "remarkably supple, and would simply adapt and continue to function normally" (end of quote).

My response: If you press on your own lower ribs, and then remove the pressure they will bounce back to their original shape. However, in the nineteenth century many women wore 'training' corsets all day, and sometimes as they slept, for the sole purpose of 'training' the shape of their ribs so that they developed an hour glass figure. As you can see in the diagrams on this website above, their ribs eventually stayed that way permanently, even when they took their corsets off. Their lungs, stomach, liver, and kidneys etc. were also permanently deformed, and, as a result, the women suffered from horrendous indigestion and many other symptoms and diseases. In 1903 it was possible to find more than 800 research articles on that subject, and at that time there were public debates which concluded that wearing corsets was extremely harmful to health, and that is why they went out of fashion.