American Psychosomatic Society no longer "Psychosomatic?"

T

Three Chord Monty

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The APS held their 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Brighton, UK, past few days. I came upon this tweet which looks to be showing a slide that, once again, says one thing & shows another, what else is new.



I followed the hashtag and soon came across this:



Naturally, there is no mention of this on the APS Twitter page. I went to their website, curious to see if there was anything noteworthy. Meh. That website frankly sucks & doesn't seem to be updated all that often. Had to hunt for awhile to find a link to their big deal meeting, too. Eventually I found it, here:

https://psychosomatic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/APS_ProgramBOOK_2024_2-003-1.pdf


It's an enormous page so I mostly just skimmed & caught a couple of familiar names--Rona Moss-Morris stands out. And I guess the POTS-stricken Iris Knoop, who this thread suggests is likely her student but no relation to Hans that we know of.


https://www.s4me.info/threads/explo...pots-2023-iris-knoop-moss-morris-et-al.35748/

There was one CFS paper to be presented:

Ynse Dooms, MSc:
Relations between subjective stress measurements and core symptomatology in chronic fatigue syndrome patients versus healthy controls
Click to expand...

@Dolphin posted a thread on a paper by Dooms a few months ago, but I don't think it's the same work. That thread is here

https://www.s4me.info/threads/an-ex...ty-in-cfs-patients-2023-dest-grosemans.35655/

But I just don't see any mention of a name change anywhere.

https://psychosomatic.org/

It makes sense they'd re-brand, I guess, given all the fuss they now have to engage in routinely while seeming to want to just pivot wholly to 'Functional' across the board. But that tweet from the Professor had an image, named the executive who announced it, and affirmed that they're changing the name of the journal as well. But I guess it wasn't important enough to make enough noise to be heard in this corner of the internet where this forum surely would've heard such a thing. No?

These people are weird, I tell ya.
 
Three Chord Monty said:
The APS held their 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Brighton, UK, past few days. I came upon this tweet which looks to be showing a slide that, once again, says one thing & shows another, what else is new.



I followed the hashtag and soon came across this:



Naturally, there is no mention of this on the APS Twitter page. I went to their website, curious to see if there was anything noteworthy. Meh. That website frankly sucks & doesn't seem to be updated all that often. Had to hunt for awhile to find a link to their big deal meeting, too. Eventually I found it, here:

https://psychosomatic.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/APS_ProgramBOOK_2024_2-003-1.pdf


It's an enormous page so I mostly just skimmed & caught a couple of familiar names--Rona Moss-Morris stands out. And I guess the POTS-stricken Iris Knoop, who this thread suggests is likely her student but no relation to Hans that we know of.


https://www.s4me.info/threads/explo...pots-2023-iris-knoop-moss-morris-et-al.35748/

There was one CFS paper to be presented:



@Dolphin posted a thread on a paper by Dooms a few months ago, but I don't think it's the same work. That thread is here

https://www.s4me.info/threads/an-ex...ty-in-cfs-patients-2023-dest-grosemans.35655/

But I just don't see any mention of a name change anywhere.

https://psychosomatic.org/

It makes sense they'd re-brand, I guess, given all the fuss they now have to engage in routinely while seeming to want to just pivot wholly to 'Functional' across the board. But that tweet from the Professor had an image, named the executive who announced it, and affirmed that they're changing the name of the journal as well. But I guess it wasn't important enough to make enough noise to be heard in this corner of the internet where this forum surely would've heard such a thing. No?

These people are weird, I tell ya.
Click to expand...

Actually worth saving all of these things and any articles on changes - of course psychosomatic try and hide that us who they are and what they sell (mind-body much?)

getting evidence the society with the BOS as new name IS the one that is psychosomatic society is actually v important for the ‘doubters’

most laypersons don’t realise they’ve a psychosomatic belief or picture of CFS when they quote nonsense they’ve been spoonfed because they don’t understand what they’ve been led into (‘just helping them with their stress/mind/etc’) DIES actually come from tgat
 
This illustrates how misleading the term bio psychosocial is, given those who identify with it seem to use it to almost exclusively mean psychological or more specifically psychosomatic, or if they can [not] completely get away with that to assume the psychological has primacy.

[edited to insert the missing ‘not’]
 
Last edited:
bobbler said:
Actually worth saving all of these things and any articles on changes - of course psychosomatic try and hide that us who they are and what they sell (mind-body much?)

getting evidence the society with the BOS as new name IS the one that is psychosomatic society is actually v important for the ‘doubters’

most laypersons don’t realise they’ve a psychosomatic belief or picture of CFS when they quote nonsense they’ve been spoonfed because they don’t understand what they’ve been led into (‘just helping them with their stress/mind/etc’) DIES actually come from tgat
Click to expand...

Honestly I think the doubters will doubt. My guess is they're changing the name because its negative connotations are an albatross for them, not because they think they can hide from any accountability they'd face for mistreatment of ME or anything else, for that matter. They'd likely dodge it anyway, slippery bastards. Eventually we'll be treated better, but I just don't see them ever admitting being wrong & causing harm as a result. Owning up would be a better dodge strategically if it looked like they could face any sort of legal or professional sanctions. If they do, a name change won't spare 'em. It is their names on all that paper that caused so much unnecessary suffering.
 
Three Chord Monty said:
Honestly I think the doubters will doubt. My guess is they're changing the name because its negative connotations are an albatross for them, not because they think they can hide from any accountability they'd face for mistreatment of ME or anything else, for that matter. They'd likely dodge it anyway, slippery bastards. Eventually we'll be treated better, but I just don't see them ever admitting being wrong & causing harm as a result. Owning up would be a better dodge strategically if it looked like they could face any sort of legal or professional sanctions. If they do, a name change won't spare 'em. It is their names on all that paper that caused so much unnecessary suffering.
Click to expand...
Oh goodness of course their type assume they will never be held to account

it just sells better for laypersons to pretend they are ‘taking care of the whole person’ and using buzzwords whereas laypersons know full well what psychosomatic means and it’s been debunked in history before which they well know hence the rebrand.

One whole part of the ethos is basically people who believe those harmed by abuse of any kind are responsible for it - cos those bullies wouldn’t have let it happen to them or, the really crazy abuser belief , it only hurts because you let it ‘that didn’t really hurt’ . It’s absolutely about personality type who do not ever accept the consequences of their actions and never change their actions unless it is ‘on show’ and ‘made worth their whole’. They would genuinely if hit someone and injured them leaving a bruise suggest why it wasn’t them who caused that bruise for example

I think that’s part of the reason it gets hidden because even the psychosomatic nonsense is just a cover for that really and is utterly half-hearted. Boy do they believe reframing reality though. And they live on reframing truth at every turn

to note the kicker is this type treat it like it’s a game and our problem is we should change our attitude to understand that is somehow ok. Life’s about them. They will only acknowledge their own made up rules as long as they can get away with it and are not forced and yes have a tendency for making up elaborate stories to make themselves the victim and most deserving of attention at all times.

This is absolutely certain for the ‘illness connected to mind’ pathway where they are trying to sell ‘locking up the weak and damaged’ having removed their rights by saying they ‘lost their mind/think wrong/ won’t cope’ and is all based on the worst disability bigotry (hatred of the sick or weak who they may themselves have directly hurt - I note it is this and not ‘ableism’)

the small group who might be victims themselves and trying to pass on advice of ‘play the game’ instead of being henchman are just telling people it’s better to find a place in the con and delude themselves to survive it and take what they can get / rule of jungle vs trying to make the world more right and things true to reality

I can maybe give short shrift to those deluded by the mis-description and misunderstanding of pain and neurons and trying to focus on x y or z when in agony (but those suggesting it as treatment are unforgivable in hospitals) in laypersons, but who is correcting them?
 
Last edited:
APS said:
Click to expand...

The label above says "a biopsychosocial model", but below is literally symptoms reported by patients. This is not a model. Models explain, this explains nothing, and it describes even less.

I do think it's a positive move. Just like most papers on "functional disorders" plainly state that it's conversion disorder & hysteria rebranded, openly admitting that biopsychosocial means psychosomatic will make it clearer. Although clearly the move in recent years has been to simply say that psychosomatic doesn't mean psychosomatic, it means *complex hand-waving that is 99% identical to what Freud came up with but they're too cowardly to say it*. More than anything, it will ruin the validity of the label biopsychosocial, which always had that false aura of legitimacy by being more hand-waving than anything.

Although to have science in the tagline is very wrong. These people are doing the opposite of science. But do notice how the "not dualists, you're the dualist" talking about "mind, brain and body". See, they're not dualists, they're trialists. Tetralists? Whatever.
 
bobbler said:
Oh goodness of course their the assume they will never be held to account
Click to expand...

I think they're safe in that assumption. If the biological underpinnings of ME were discovered next week, I bet some of them would be totally unabashed.

"Oh, we didn't mean that chronic fatigue syndrome."
"It doesn't explain all cases, of course."
"Well, it's what the scientific* evidence† was telling us at the time."

The main thing is getting a salaried post. They don't have to win prizes or make any anyone's life better; as long as they're getting paid, any old blatherskite will do.


* Not necessarily scientific
† Not necessarily evidence
 
rvallee said:
The label above says "a biopsychosocial model", but below is literally symptoms reported by patients. This is not a model. Models explain, this explains nothing, and it describes even less.

I do think it's a positive move. Just like most papers on "functional disorders" plainly state that it's conversion disorder & hysteria rebranded, openly admitting that biopsychosocial means psychosomatic will make it clearer. Although clearly the move in recent years has been to simply say that psychosomatic doesn't mean psychosomatic, it means *complex hand-waving that is 99% identical to what Freud came up with but they're too cowardly to say it*. More than anything, it will ruin the validity of the label biopsychosocial, which always had that false aura of legitimacy by being more hand-waving than anything.

Although to have science in the tagline is very wrong. These people are doing the opposite of science. But do notice how the "not dualists, you're the dualist" talking about "mind, brain and body". See, they're not dualists, they're trialists. Tetralists? Whatever.
Click to expand...

it's weird how they never talk about or research calming the body to help the mind. How someone having their body hurt isn't going to do the 'mind' much good, and maybe if you fix the broken leg both will be much better but if you gaslight them into therapy focusing on imagining their leg isn't broken goodness know which of the three they think they are actually helping? Sounds like a good way to scar the supposed 'mind' to me. or is it more about 'helping' that other person that just wants them to go away and stop being hurt/ill/looking like they have a broken leg?
 
Last edited:
Three Chord Monty said:
The APS held their 2024 Annual Scientific Meeting in Brighton, UK, past few days. I came upon this tweet which looks to be showing a slide that, once again, says one thing & shows another, what else is new.

Click to expand...


What it shows yet again is how they adopt patients' descriptions of their illness. It starts back in the 1980s when they say that the only symptom is pretty much just fatigue and then each time patients say it's more than that and describe something else, they simply add the symptom or description.
 
I just noticed how they don't understand what we mean by fatigue, as they put the ZZZZZs signifying somnolence on both mental and physical fatigue icons. I had such a weird time at a sleep clinic trying to explain how when I say fatigue I don't mean somnolence. It's really not possible to work something out when they change the meaning of words to suit their expectations and refuse when we correct them. Although they didn't place it next to physical fatigue, they placed it next to PEM, which is even more wrong.

Also noticed "new headaches". Why specifically headaches, when every other symptom is also new from onset of the illness?

I really don't understand what can be fantastic about this, it merely lists the most common symptoms. Which is often dismissed when patients do that in a consult, it's "non-specific". There's this weird kindergarten vibe in psychosomatics where everything is great and fantastic and worthy of gold stars as long as it's psychosocial. It's so weird, completely free of any valid criticism or reasoning. Which is basically the opposite of what academia is like.

It's more or less the symptoms-based clinical criteria that are widely rejected in favor of, I guess, those same criteria but with a different intent? As long as they're psychosocial instead of, uh, biological, I guess. "Bio"psychosocial in a nutshell. Since clearly psychology is this separate mind thing that is independent of physical state, but capable of influencing physical state to the point of "mimicking" any and all symptoms to infinity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom