Blog: Spoonseeker, "The Cult of MUS" [guest post by Couch Turnip]

[Andy]

This MUS cult is so dangerous. It’s flavour of the decade because, apart from being a whacky belief system, it is also an economic management model that has been built on the management model for ME/CFS. The BPS cabal have succeeded in depriving ME/CFS patients of care, proper investigation, research and the chance of effective treatment for far too long, and now they’re extending the same model to everyone else, and especially to those who have unexplained symptoms. (That’s just about everyone who goes to a GP before they get diagnosed.) What better way is there for governments, health services and insurance companies to save money than to tell people that their symptoms are due to psychological problems and deny them biomedical care on that basis from the outset?

https://spoonseeker.com/2019/04/17/the-cult-of-mus/

 

[Trish]

It's a very short article which was originally posted in response to a David Tuller article. Sums up the problem. So what can we do about it?

It highlights what high stakes there are to demolishing PACE and similar trials. If we could get it accepted that all the trials based on subjective outcomes in open label trials are junk, that should, theoretically, kill off the whole IAPT for MUS bandwagon. No wonder they are fighting so hard to defend them.

Time for another donation to David Tuller, methinks! (but only if you can afford it, of course).

 

[Hutan]

What better way is there for governments, health services and insurance companies to save money

Umm, maybe, do some real research and actually fix people?

I think MUS could end up costing governments more than not having MUS. We're seeing the rise of branded courses by private providers of mindfulness and other such trendy stuff. It's happening here in NZ, where the fact that someone has been specially flown in from Scotland makes it all the more compelling. And these private providers can afford to take government decision makers out for nice lunches.

 

[Snowdrop]

I'm uncertain here but I think it might be useful for those who write on the subject to highlight the lip-service only aspect of the physical and social issues of why people are ill -- the other 2/3rds of the BPS.

How is it that only the psychological gets funding for research and why is only the psychological considered to be relevant as the major treatment model. So far the BPS have shouted that it's the only thing we've got (and we all know why that is) but I think this needs to be said over and over til it sticks. We only have CBT/GET because they suck up all the research money.

Another aspect is to question how things can be done different at Universities who view the psychology dept as an easy money maker. The research (which shouldn't really even be called that) doesn't matter in the face of drawing money to the Uni.

Real science is hard and costly. There needs to be some kind of new analysis that considers all the things that get left out when pushing for IAPT for MUS.

 

[Amw66]

Umm, maybe, do some real research and actually fix people?

I think MUS could end up costing governments more than not having MUS. We're seeing the rise of branded courses by private providers of mindfulness and other such trendy stuff. It's happening here in NZ, where the fact that someone has been specially flown in from Scotland makes it all the more compelling. And these private providers can afford to take government decision makers out for nice lunches.

The Mickel therapy inventor?
I have a friend recently diagnosed with CFS who has just shelled out a fortune for this. ...