Balance-ACT Study - Chalder

I only found this info from a job ad:

https://www.kcl.ac.uk/jobs/075605-acceptance-and-commitment-therapist

eta: another ad, slightly different description
Place as Acceptance and Dedication Therapist at KINGS COLLEGE LONDON

Place as Acceptance and Dedication Therapist at KINGS COLLEGE LONDON (dailylondonuk.com)

 

The science behind it? Ah! Good one. These quacks never needed to bother with that before, and are still getting paid anyway, their opinions presented as fact. They won't stop as long as they get away with it, and we are long past the point at which most of the blame lays with the institutions enabling the quackery.

They can do endless variations of the same thing, with as much difference as wearing hats vs wearing them backwards, and it always gets approved anyway.

The scandal with institutionally supported scams isn't the scam part, it's the institutionally supported part.

 

noted the funding source: "an opportunity to join a multidisciplinary Guy’s & St Thomas’ Hospital Charity-funded study"

and looked up the charity. This seems a bit unusual as most of the things the charity is funding seem to be things done by Guys & St Thomas Hospital and staff. https://gsttcharity.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/

I'm guessing this project is the "Plus, we’re backing the UK’s first trial of talking therapies to support long-COVID patients." under the Pioneering Treatments for Long Covid section at the bottom of the following page: https://gsttcharity.org.uk/about-us/what-we-do/reacting-fast-to-covid-19/

 

"The present study aims to actively involve people with Long Covid in the development of an intervention that is acceptable, feasible and tailored to the needs of this population."

"The intervention will target psycho-physiological aspects of Long Covid and will encourage people to lead a values-based life"

"What will happen if I take Part?
....You will be invited to take part in a qualitative inerview online. The questions will focus on the format of the intervention and ways to deliver it more effectively."

Sounds like a complete straw man proposal where they've done the usual - there is nothing, there is a need, this is a terrible illness spiel (leaving out their part played in there being nothing useful) - and then used non sequitur to suggest they are tackling that in some way.

The first quote above seems to kid that there is some sort of co-creation going to happen from the authors.

The 'what will happen if I take part?' para makes it clear this is going to be limited to 'how many sessions would you like'.


Goodness knows where in the whole of this there is any suggestion that whatever it means 'a values-based life' has anything to do with Long Covid. And then you have to think that the 'values' will have come from the mind of someone like Chalder and colleagues - yes literally their own personal 'values' (insert bigotry if their happen to be that) and 'ideology about these people and how they assume they live and think vs should live and think'.

Where is the part where a charity or funder asks the question of 'why isn't that a harmful thing, and I'm supposed to assume it's 'helpful' based on what - dib dib dob dob and 'because I work in a dept associated with/calling itself the caring profession' (even though I'm actually when I go to other conferences in a niche that is rather different in emphasis)? but that in this case isn't honouring that will ensuring they are checking for harms in their methods' .


Isn't this whole add basically the definition of paternalism? and probably callous disregard (whilst claiming good intentions not really open to questions or checks that the consequences would be/are good, bad or ugly and updating accordingly to actually see whether it could do/does harm or good)

 

Yup. Chalder has discovered that they can no longer get by while shoving the actual receivers of the treatment aside; patient-participation, nothing about us without us, is "hot" atm - to me it looks indeed like they're trying to create an illusion of it.

Like bobbler, I expect them to ask questions about format and ways to deliver (like internet-based, following Knoop, so sick patients don't have to travel, isn't that considerate?/s), and then make a lot of noise about how their intervention is based on patient paticipation and -approval.

I expect she won't ask Long COVID patients how they feel about treating their illness like it's their attitude, cognitions and behaviour that are the problem, or how they feel about a therapy blaming their mums as a "predisposing" reason they've got Long COVID now.

 

It's blatant patronising and malicious ablism dressed up as "science".

(Apart from that, the notion that an author of the PACE trial who tells the health care providers of crashing, bedbound Long COVID patients that their PEM is "health anxiety", thinks she is the appropriate person to teach people about leading a "values-based life" is darkly hilarious.)

 

Yes, it was. There's another thread on it on S4ME: Using patient feedback to develop an intervention for Long COVID, current study by Trudie Chalder, 2022 | Science for ME (s4me.info)

But this ad is for something else, they are setting up a study on the actual intervention itself.

(Joining a study on the effectiveness of pushing patronising and disablist bs on sick people pays rather nicely I see.)

 

Sounds more religious than anything else. Them good ol' Chalderiaan values.