Covid-19 - Psychological research and treatment

It would be interesting to know Turner-Stokes means by that "some patients".

Does it mean some of the overall patients she sees, and those are the patients she diagnoses as having MUS?

Or does she mean some of the MUS patients? In which case how does she interpret the remainder of the MUS patients?
 
chrisb said:
It would be interesting to know Turner-Stokes means by that "some patients".

Does it mean some of the overall patients she sees, and those are the patients she diagnoses as having MUS?

Or does she mean some of the MUS patients? In which case how does she interpret the remainder of the MUS patients?
Click to expand...
I’m assuming some Patients really means all MUS patients are malingerering secondary gains types to those medics etc who are ‘in the know’ but they don’t want to be too blatant in case they get challenged. Just fudge so if you get called out you can wangle out of it by saying whatever you think you can get away with with that audience.
 
I'm really glad so.much of this is being aired on social media.

If nothing else it will give some of those suffering post covid some warning if how these "professionals" really view them & may be that will be enough to ensure more patients manage to avoid their clutches.

It must seem surreal to the likes of Garner to see this kind of thing. Back in the 80s and 90s we knew it went on but it went on behind closed doors. If you tried to discuss it with people they thought you were paranoid, a conspiracy theorist, a bit delusional and therefore it reinforced the idea you were in denial about your mental health.

I hope someone somewhere is saving this stuff.
 
Esther12 said:
Skipped to just the RMM bits... they were annoying. So what the PVFS work Simon and she have done apparently means they "know as to how to, kind of, facilitate recovery and support people" and this can be extrapolated to 'long-covid'.

"What covid's really showing us is the importance of getting the right help early on"... how has it shown us that?

They need to be "providing the correct behavioral advice is to gradually returning to activity" - how does she know what is correct?

Avoiding boom and bust..?

Prof Lynne Turner--Stokes has her own concerns about MUS patients, eg:



https://www.eapm.eu.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/EACLPP_Turner_MUS_2002.pdf
Click to expand...

From the above document
‘Illness’ can be a social condition Engenders a caring response Admiration from peers ‘Isn’t she brave!”
Click to expand...
Just shows how utterly ignorant she is about the experience of having a not-yet-proved-organic disease. People dont generally consider people with ME brave, despite the reality of them being so, precisely because of the shite that people like you peddle! What kind of fantsy land are you living in woman? where you think anyone with MUS gets 'admiration from peers'?!!!
Err.... stigma? HELLO?

Support family in withdrawing from caring role
Click to expand...
Nice
 
Given that whether an outbreak is in progress is decided upon on the basis of positive test results in an area I fail to see how this could in any way be the case.

Flagrant distortion of reality.

Otherwise known as a barefaced lie.
 
rvallee said:
:banghead:

Some local coronavirus outbreaks could be 'mass hysteria', Joint Biosecurity Centre warns



https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...tbreaks-could-mass-hysteriajoint-biosecurity/

And round and round the merry-go-round goes.
Click to expand...
Oh for goodness sake. these will be the ones that

"up to 30% tested negative, proving that it was unhelpful beliefs causing their symptoms"
'err.... cough.... but the test is only about 70% reliable'..........
'stop with your activism & harassment, we are being forced to leave the field!'
 
In previous public health incidents, episodes of mass psychogenic illness (13, 14) or increased symptom reporting or requests for testing have occurred as a result of heightened population anxiety or media reporting (15-17). These will complicate the epidemiological picture, but if poorly handled, mass psychogenic illness can also provoke substantial anxiety, anger and loss of trust in a community (e.g. 18). JBC should be alert to the possibility of local episodes of mass psychogenic illness and should quickly discuss suspicions with public health teams to help them resolve the situation quickly.
Click to expand...

Reference 13 is a paper by Wessely.

How not to handle a pandemic: tell people they are hysterical unless they really have covid 19. People should wait to tighten social distancing, seek testing and medical help until they're really sure they're not hysterical. Because making sure the hysterics aren't accidentally taken seriously is so much more important than early detection of real cases. Diagnostic tests are also 100% reliable and there's no risk in declaring anyone's covid-like symptoms with a negative test to be psychogenic (sarcasm).
 
Last edited:
The third person on the video seemed nice and sensible.
I have not looked at RMM, as I doubt I would see anything new.
What struck me about Lynne Turner Stokes presentation on the video and slideshow was the complete absence of any evidence combined with didactic advice on the right thing to do. Lynne is a highly intelligent woman but intelligence does not seem to be a bar to enthusiasm-based medicine. She makes some valid points about the confused terminology but still appears to go along with the establishment psychological view. She seems to think you can identify psychological causes in individual patients. She should know that there is no way you can do that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom