Firstly, neither Dr Goldmeier or Dr Kocsis say that POIS is actually psychosomatic although this is one theory they are investigating or "exploring" as Dr Kocsis puts it. Dr Kocsis is a psychologist so it is natural for her to consider POIS from a psychological perspective. Dr Goldmeier has openly admitted to me and in the ABC interview that he doesn't know what POIS is. He clearly is looking at the psychology of it with Dr Kocsis but has also consulted with immunologist colleagues about POIS and prescribed me both diclofenac to test (anti-inflammatory) and levocitirizine (antihistamine). Joe Burger on the poiscenter forum found that levocitirizine (also prescribed to him by Dr G.) helped him. I have some but am yet to test it as I want to wait for a non-POIS health issue that I currently have to clear up first. My impression from discussions with Dr G. is that he is not dismissive of Dr Waldinger's theories but equally has a few reservations about them owing to the lack of controls in his studies (something Dr W has acknowledged himself).
It is normal in science to have more than one hypothesis about something and to test the hypotheses until the correct one or a better one is found. As long as it is done from a scientifically rigorous perspective, I don't think we should be angry, especially at this early stage, if someone wants to examine POIS from a psychological perspective. Its something that hasn't been done in a scientific way before and in fact this could end up helping to permanently eliminate a psychological explanation if the medical literature ends up concluding that this is not psychological. Of course Dr Waldinger has already gone some way to publishing that POIS is not psychosomatic and if his future studies are more widely accepted as being carried out in a rigorous way (eg. with better controls) then this could do the job for us. What IS potentially damaging is if people see interviews by Dr Goldmeier and Dr Kocsis and interpret them as concrete factual explanations rather than theoretical ones. That is where the danger lies for us. In that regard it is also not that helpful to us that after Dr Waldinger's 2011 papers the media appeared to report that the cause of POIS had definitely been found. I was conscious of this during our reddit campaign. I was afraid people might read the news reports on the internet and conclude that actually the solution to POIS has been found. As we know, that isn't definitely the case.
Mellirova, this is a very thoughtful post, and what you're saying makes sense.
And, we should certainly open to looking into all possibilities -- it's just difficult to hear statements that can come across as 'fact', rather than 'possibility', especially when we're already having to overcome the general prejudice of "Oh, it MUST be psychological". I.e. since many people hearing about it would already be inclined to view it as psychological, it can be more misleading even to be seeming to put that view forth in an interview. In contrast, if in an interview someone gives an impression that it is physiological, not psychological, then this would go against, rather than confirming, people's prejudice. In this latter case, they might then ask for more data -- which is fine and proper. But, if they hear an interview that gives the impression that it is psychological, they'd just say 'yes, that makes sense', rather than seeking data to confirm or disprove *that* view. That is, it is not a symmetrical situation that we're facing in seeking to overcome prejudices!