BPS attempts at psychologizing Long Covid

From The Guardian link in post #2788

If long Covid can be understood through the framework of CFS, medical investigation is important, but a psychologically informed approach that does not treat the symptoms as the entire story is crucial in helping people understand and manage how they feel. As Williams says: “What most people need more than anything is somebody with the time to really listen to them.”
Click to expand...

This makes me want to punch the author. I don't want to be soothed about any health problem I have. I want to be investigated and treated for physical problems. The psychological stuff must come later, if it is needed at all.
 
There is some evidence of a sort for the childhood trauma theory. For example, two CDC random population CFS studies found it. However both used the so-called empiric criteria (Reeves et al., 2005) which are terrible criteria, in my opinion worse than the Oxford criteria. Recall bias could be a big issue too. So I’m not convinced of the theory but one can easily be challenged if one says there is no evidence.
 
Dolphin said:
There is some evidence of a sort for the childhood trauma theory. For example, two CDC random population CFS studies found it. However both used the so-called empiric criteria (Reeves et al., 2005) which are terrible criteria, in my opinion worse than the Oxford criteria. Recall bias could be a big issue too. So I’m not convinced of the theory but one can easily be challenged if one says there is no evidence.
Click to expand...
The 2017 study quoted here is a good one to cite
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
ME Association

@MEAssociation
·
5h

.
@eleanormorgan
Long read but, if you're up for it, well worth the effort - 'Long Covid: ‘Is this now me forever?’' | The Observer, 29 November, 2020: https://theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/29/eleanor-morgan-is-still-struggling-with-long-covid-months-after-catching-the-virus… #longcovid #longhaulers #mecfs #cfsme #MyalgicE #pwme

Why is the MEA recommending this ill-informed muddle?
Click to expand...
I'd say it was Tony Britton. He had the exact same wording for a tweet earlier. I think he runs the account some of the time.

The tweet has now been deleted.
 
what is the 2018 study she's referring to that was the "largest" on "causes" of CFS? I mean, much of the article is perfectly reasonable. It's when she gets to CFS and the purportedly well-established link with childhood trauma that the article goes off the cliff.
 
dave30th said:
what is the 2018 study she's referring to that was the "largest" on "causes" of CFS? I mean, much of the article is perfectly reasonable. It's when she gets to CFS and the purportedly well-established link with childhood trauma that the article goes off the cliff.
Click to expand...
I wonder what the group of physicians who got long COVID and wrote a letter to editor in a sci journal would have to say about this article? Would they appreciate the suggestion that they may catastrophize too? I am so fed up with the gaslighting.
 
I've just had an email from a friend who doesn't have ME but has read some of the stuff I've shared over the years. She came across the article in her newspaper, and said her reaction to the psych stuff in the article was to want to throw it across the room. She's not up on all the details, but she's a retired nurse, and very sensible, and could see all that stuff about catastrophising and mental health causes for ME is crap.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
Sadly the Guardian/Observer seems impervious to common sense and tact when it comes to medical matters but one day things might change.
Click to expand...

We can live in hope and die in despair! – as my mother used to say, rolling her eyes.

But Katharine Cheston, whom I've not come across before, did a pretty good job of demolishing the absurdities in article on Twitter. It won't dent the Observer's tendency to smugness about being on the right side of every argument, but it made me feel better.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom