I’ve seen many BPS proponents that argue thatour argument is that there's no strong evidence of "stress management" having the power to reverse changes that have already occurred on a cellular or systemic level in ME/CFS.
I haven't a clue what all the long jargon words and philosophical stuff quoted from the article iis about, but I can wholeheartedly agree with these two statements. I wish the BPS people had your clarity.
In this specific case it would be because it has caused a tremendous amount of harm, not just because it isn’t successful.Being cynical, are people only motivated to dig into philosophical underpinnings of an approach to medical intervention when there are no unambiguously successful treatments?
I’ve seen many BPS proponents that argue that
When I’ve asked about how the CNS can cause such changes, the answer is always a bit handwavy or something like ‘the CNS regulates the immune system, so the changes must have come from the CNS’.
- There are no changes on a cellular or systemic level
- If there are changes, they are continuously maintained by the CNS, i.e. downstream effects of unhelpful beliefs, a stuck stress response, a mismatch between perceived capabilities and actual capabilities, an effort preference, etc.