Daily Mail: EXCLUSIVE: Barely able to leave the house, told they are exaggerating and even that their ailment does not exist: Three ME patients reveal

Rob Howard copies Sir Simon's chumminess and then shows again he doesn't know what he is talking about.
Let’s not fall out, Ivana. No such thing as a perfect trial. They are among the most difficult of all experiments to conduct. Also, the easiest of experiments to criticise. I have done them myself and am very aware of this. But, I don’t consider that PACE should be so vilified.
Click to expand...
Code: 
https://twitter.com/ProfRobHoward/status/1235490560875597825
 
chrisb said:
We see amazing new quotes with everything produced. That Komaroff, Wessly interview contains this

Stephen Holgate. For years the medical profession did not acknowledge chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) as a ‘real’ condition. The situation became confused when the term myalgic encephalopathy (ME) was introduced and linked to CFS, with many preferring ME because it implied (rightly or wrongly) a concept of mechanisms.

That would suggest that in 2011 Holgate had no idea about the history of the condition. Was he unaware of the previous use of ME, before someone suggested it be changed to myalgic encephalopathy.
Click to expand...
have just seen this:
"Definition of 'myalgic encephalopathy'
Also called: chronic fatigue syndrome. Abbreviation: ME. Formerly called: myalgic encephalomyelitis"

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/d...P0uQ0_UUDobLQLxUk98NvBjfzpL7rW-YZHM0A0Xjvq_9Q

maybe someone could let them know that it is still Myalgic Encephalomyelitis (see WHO )

We welcome feedback or enquiries regarding this website; please email enquiries@collinsdictionary.com
 
I thought CS and the MEA proposed changing the name around 2002, give or take a year or two.

However one tries to make sense of that remark of Holgate's, one can't. There could have been a mistake in transcription, but that would still not account for a belief that CFS preceded ME.
 
SW: Am sorry but that just isn’t CBT otherwise how [would] CBT improve rehab in RA MS or cancer? What I tell people is you have been dealt a hand of cards - we can’t change that - but there are different ways of playing that hand.
Click to expand...

We know more than anyone that the way to play that hand is to pace. Yet by different ways to play the hand he only means GET and CBT which have been objectively proven to fail by even his own trials.

I think is a bit too far. No one dictates treatment for anyone. My colleagues and I devoted many years to developing and testing new approaches. When someone improves on those, whoever or whatever that is, that will be great. In the meantime I think this “conversation” is over
Click to expand...

So some ONE could improve potentially due to the thing they did at the time administered by himself or his colleagues. Not even proof that the thing they did caused the claimed improvement.

Notice he doesn't claim recovery or cure either in that statement. Yet he thinks its admirable that he spent years developing failed treatments that the best statement he can make after 30 years is "when someone improves".

He also claims he/they devoted years testing and developing new approaches. That's false. They just implemented CBT and GET on a failed premise from day one.

Lets say they initially gave it five years to see if it worked thats six sets of five years wasted when the data always proved it was nonsense from day one.
 
Last edited:
large donner said:
So some ONE could improve potentially due to the thing they did at the time administered by himself or his colleagues. Not even proof that the thing they did caused the claimed improvement.
Click to expand...

I took that to mean, when someone produces a new (and improved) approach to treatment, rather than someone showing an improvement in their condition on his txs.

Their use of language around this really is a minefield.
 
Andy said:
Rob Howard copies Sir Simon's chumminess and then shows again he doesn't know what he is talking about.

Code: 
https://twitter.com/ProfRobHoward/status/1235490560875597825
Click to expand...


Cronies.

After undergraduate study at Cambridge and St Bartholomew's Hospital in London, I trained at the Maudsley and became Professor of Old Age Psychiatry and Psychopathology at King's College London in 2002. In 2015, I moved to the Division of Psychiatry at University College London.
Click to expand...

From https://www.ucl.ac.uk/mental-health/people/professor-rob-howard
 
Never mind the typos-

ME patients are catastrophizing, are overly focused on symptoms, hold fearful convictions about the dangers of exertion. No one says that about those with mental illness. No one says that patients with depression have unhelpful beliefs about their state of mind.
Click to expand...

Brilliant! In all the arguments over the years this is the first time I've heard this one and it is absolutely spot on.:thumbup:
 


This is a good line of argument. Rather than trying to argue that ME is a 'physical illness' in these debates, we should be asking these charlatans for proof that it is a psychological illness.

The fact is, that ME/CFS has been in the hands of the psychiatrists since the 1980s and they have not published a single shred of evidence that proves that ME is psychological. Moreover, when you take a proper look at the data from their (flawed) trials, their chosen psychological treatments do not work. This is damning enough.

We should not have to prove that ME is physical. The onus is on the psychiatrists to prove that ME is psychological. It is time for them to put up or shut up.
 
Last edited:
'Psychological' is not really the important word here. It is 'Psychogenic', or maybe more accurately 'Psycho-perpetuated'.

'Psychological' is rather vague; it could be used to mean anything between a strong assertion of psychogenesis/psychoperpetuation, to a weaker observation of 'the mind is significantly affected'. As such it is ripe for the typical equivocation by BPS goofballs.

For example, Alzheimer's is a psychological disease (among other things) that is certainly not psychogenic/perpetuated. ME/CFS has psychological features such as cognitive impairment and increased rates of depression/anxiety.

As pointed out, the model in PACE is the 'illness beliefs' model which is definitively in the 'psychoperpetuation' category. In this model one would expect improvement in function to correlate with 'improvement' in beliefs, including self-ratings. This was the opposite of what was seen in PACE - people's beliefs 'improved', but they did not. So the psychogenic/psychoperpetuated model was definitively rendered extremely implausible by PACE.
 
James Morris-Lent said:
'Psychological' is not really the important word here. It is 'Psychogenic', or maybe more accurately 'Psycho-perpetuated'.

'Psychological' is rather vague; it could be used to mean anything between a strong assertion of psychogenesis/psychoperpetuation, to a weaker observation of 'the mind is significantly affected'. As such it is ripe for the typical equivocation by BPS goofballs.

For example, Alzheimer's is a psychological disease (among other things) that is certainly not psychogenic/perpetuated. ME/CFS has psychological features such as cognitive impairment and increased rates of depression/anxiety.
Click to expand...
I'd disagree with parts of this. Brainfog isn't psychological, strictly speaking; it's neurological or neurocognitive. At a push, you might call it neuropsychological, but that means something different to psychological.

Alzheimer's is a neurodegenerative disease with some psychological effects: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/alzheimers/what-is-alzheimers-disease and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease At a push, some people call it neuropsychiatric but that's still up for debate.
 
adambeyoncelowe said:
I'd disagree with parts of this. Brainfog isn't psychological, strictly speaking; it's neurological or neurocognitive. At a push, you might call it neuropsychological, but that means something different to psychological.

Alzheimer's is a neurodegenerative disease with some psychological effects: https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/alzheimers/what-is-alzheimers-disease and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alzheimer's_disease At a push, some people call it neuropsychiatric but that's still up for debate.
Click to expand...
This. I suggest anyone wanting to learn more about dementia and how those diseases affect the brain check out Alzheimer’s Research UK. https://www.alzheimersresearchuk.org/orange/
 
Psychological can quite fairly mean as little as 'relating to the mind' or 'affecting the mind'.

Alzheimer's entails much more than "some psychological effects". You literally lose your mind. Of course the cause is neuro-something.

Brainfog profoundly reduces mental abilities. Perhaps favored terminology is 'neurocognitive' but I have no problem calling it a salient psychological feature.

The point is that 'psychological' is a vague term that affords all sorts of opportunities for slipperiness in arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom