Brian Hughes - If you spend 20 years gaslighting your patients, perhaps you should think twice before accusing *them* of trolling *you*

Esther12 said:
p141 here: https://valerieeliotsmith.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/natarchbn141dss.pdf

Maybe their interpretation of Wessely's letter on p227?

Some of RyanNCTweets' messages look unhelpful to me, with over the top confidence about questionable claims and some needless insults. Just saw them claiming to be sure enteroviruses were the cause of CFS in an exchange with someone else who was sure XMRV was the cause.
Click to expand...

are these the so-called 'secret files'?
I've not read them before......just started :jawdrop:.........no wonder they wanted to keep them quiet.

upload_2019-3-23_16-27-38.png

from SW to Mansel Aylward.


sounds eerily familiar
 
Sly Saint said:
anyone know where the quote in this tweet came from?
Click to expand...
Esther12 said:
p141 here: https://valerieeliotsmith.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/natarchbn141dss.pdf

Maybe their interpretation of Wessely's letter on p227?
Click to expand...


Yes, it appears to be an overly generous interpretation of this part of said letter:
I note that you state that studies of CFS have essentially found normal muscle function. This is indeed correct. However, you go on to state that patients may "refrain from walking because they are fearful of the consequences". It is certainly true that I and my colleagues consider that anxiety about the consequences of activity is one factor perpetuating disability in CFS patients. However, I should point out that, unlike the studies of muscle function, this is by no means proven. Furthermore it is probably only one of many factors contributing to disability, and even then may only be of importance in a small sub group.
Click to expand...


But this is how Wessely actually distinguishes between ME and CFS:
The epidemiology of environmental illness is largely unknown, partly because of difficulties in case definition and the confusion between an illness belief, usually self-diagnosed, and a reproducible, reliable, exclusive case definition [12]. As such it is reminiscent of the difficulties encountered in distinguishing between the epidemiology of myalgic encephalomyelitis (ME), a belief, and chronic fatigue syndrome, an operationally defined syndrome [13].
Click to expand...

HOWARD, L. M., & WESSELY, S. (1995). Psychiatry in the allergy clinic: the nature and management of patients with non-allergic symptoms. Clinical Experimental Allergy, 25(6), 503–514. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1995.tb01087.x


Another quote from one of the leading scientists who bravely fought to get ME/CFS recognized as a serious disease in the medical community: /s
Labelling CFS: the disadvantages

Arguments against the act of diagnosis for the most part thrive on the mediating effects of pessimistic illness beliefs on the course of complaints. Diagnosis elicits the belief the patient has a serious disease, leading to symptom focusing that becomes self-validating and self-reinforcing and that renders worse outcomes, a self-fulfilling prophecy, especially if the label is a biomedical one like ME. Diagnosis leads to transgression into the sick role, the act of becoming a patient even if complaints do not call for it, the development of an illness identity and the experience of victimization. Diagnosis may send patients in the direction of support groups, with their overrepresentation of chronic sufferers and frequent anti-psychiatric attitudes, although we should acknowledge the distinction between bona fide patient organizations and radical Internet pressure groups that are waiting for the still elusive ‘medical breakthrough’, relying solely on alternative treatments in the meantime. The dangers of labelling have raised some voices to abandon diagnostic labels such as CFS altogether.

In sum, receiving a CFS diagnosis may contain a harmful message that triggers or validates perceptions of ill health and catastrophic outcomes. If this message takes root in a person suffering from fatigue, prompted by personal beliefs, comments by others or the hostile reception of a physician, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy that perpetuates and exacerbates symptoms, with comprehensive consequences.
Click to expand...

HUIBERS, M. J. H., & WESSELY, S. (2006). The act of diagnosis: pros and cons of labelling chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychological Medicine, 36(07), 895. doi:10.1017/s0033291705006926
 
Last edited:
lunarswirls said:
Yes, it appears to be an overly generous interpretation of this part of said letter:



But this is how Wessely actually distinguishes between ME and CFS:


HOWARD, L. M., & WESSELY, S. (1995). Psychiatry in the allergy clinic: the nature and management of patients with non-allergic symptoms. Clinical Experimental Allergy, 25(6), 503–514. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1995.tb01087.x


Another quote from one of the leading scientists who bravely fought to get ME/CFS recognized as a serious disease in the medical community: /s


HUIBERS, M. J. H., & WESSELY, S. (2006). The act of diagnosis: pros and cons of labelling chronic fatigue syndrome. Psychological Medicine, 36(07), 895. doi:10.1017/s0033291705006926
Click to expand...
I'm almost impressed at the sheer density of bullshit in the last quoted paper. It's as if Wessely had never interacted with a human. He describes a complete caricature of human behavior, a kind of machine learning experiment gone wrong, taking decades of psychobabble and distilling them into one perfectly dense nugget of aggressive and condescending ignorance.

It could not have captured the exact opposite of my experience any better if he had tried, literally no part of his interpretation is relevant to mine.
 
rvallee said:
I'm almost impressed at the sheer density of bullshit in the last quoted paper.
Click to expand...
He seemed to have been onto something here though :rolleyes: ...
Sound evidence for the treatment of CFS is still poor. For patients seeking active treatment, cognitive-behavioural therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) are currently the best available options (Whiting et al. 2001). However, it should be kept in mind that evidence from randomized trials bears no guarantee for treatment success in routine practice. In fact, many CFS patients, in specialized treatment centres and the wider world, do not benefit from these interventions. When it comes to the management and treatment of CFS patients, there is still a lot to be learned.
Click to expand...
[my bold and underline]
 
Wesseley's remarks above, from:

lunarswirls said:
HOWARD, L. M., & WESSELY, S. (1995). Psychiatry in the allergy clinic: the nature and management of patients with non-allergic symptoms. Clinical Experimental Allergy, 25(6), 503–514. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2222.1995.tb01087.x
Click to expand...

"confusion between an illness belief, usually self-diagnosed, and a reproducible, reliable, exclusive case definition [12]."

I wonder which case definition/diagnostic criteria/name of illness this refers to? I cannot think of one that the BPS crowd have thought up that is reproducible, reliable or exclusive!
 
BruceInOz said:
Well, this thread has so far uncovered lots of evidence to support @Brian Hughes claim of gaslighting! Only fault is it's more like 30 years than 20.
Click to expand...

30 years? You should be so lucky. When I was a lad we had to go down to the pond at dead of night and catch the will'o'the wisp methane before it lit, compress it in milk churns and fill the lights before we could read a bedtime story (in the shoebox). Now that were gaslighting.
 
As we, and now many other groups, have shown that the only determinant of outcome in this condition is strength of belief in a solely physical cause...
Click to expand...

It couldn't be that people with a primarily physical illness have a stronger belief in a solely physical cause than people who do not have a primarily physical illness, and that the real problem is that the case definition being used simply can't differentiate between the two groups... could it?

---------------------------



BTW, if you see this guy hanging around, there's a good chance that he is gaslighting you. ;)

gaslight.jpg
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom