I always feel like we don't have enough knowledge about the brain to be able to confidently say that something stems from a problem in the brain - it's great as a hypothesis, but can it become anything more than that without a firm base in factual proof? I personally feel like the Scheibenbogen paper from last year explains our autonomic dysfunction in a way that is more realistic, in the sense that they have actually been able to trace antibodies. (I'm aware that this needs to be repeated before this information becomes actually useful though...)We wonder whether it might be problems of the brain centres that control the autonomic nervous system, so they are areas in the brain stem, whether or not it might be an abnormality of the hypothalamic pituitary axis, so how hormones are produced and the impact that they might have on the vascular system. Or alternatively it could be that the autonomic nervous system is having difficulties regulating the cardiovascular system and that the symptoms of autonomic dysfunction arise as a consequence of that.
Scheibenbogen paper said:Infection-triggered disease onset, chronic immune activation and autonomic dysregulation in CFS point to an autoimmune disease directed against neurotransmitter receptors. Autoantibodies against G-protein coupled receptors were shown to play a pathogenic role in several autoimmune diseases.