George Monbiot on ME/CFS, PACE, BPS and Long Covid

According to Garner-
When I was in the middle of debilitating long Covid, reading endless stories about the permanent damage to organs and that the illness may last for ever made me feel worse. Scary information has an impact on all patients, even those of us who are medically trained.

Indeed information -scary or otherwise - can have a big impact on patients. It gives them the tools to best manage their condition.
 
- I also mentioned a possible role for rehabilitation to help patients with post-Covid fatigue. Mr Monbiot appears to be surprised that this could help, quoting criticisms of a decade-old study – the Pace trial – which found that gradual and supervised rehabilitation was helpful in chronic fatigue syndrome.


https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/apr/16/analysing-long-covid-and-managing-anxiety


How many patients recovered back to their previous full lives after this ‘gradual and supervised rehabilitation’? And should you call it rehabilitation if the patient does not recover.
 
How many patients recovered back to their previous full lives after this ‘gradual and supervised rehabilitation’? And should you call it rehabilitation if the patient does not recover.

And how long does the "recovery" last? What mechanisms are in place to determine if it is a "recovery" or merely a remission.

Given we are still locked down and under fairly tight restriction can we really measure whether many of these people have recovered fully? We won't know until they are back to their daily commute and dropping kids off here and there and making sure everyone has the appropriate clean clothes every morning etc., etc.
 
So, Sharpe gets his right of reply but readers have no right to comment? Monbiot's article had comments enabled, Sharpe's article should have the same treatment.

Sharpe's was just a letter though.

But you are conflating. What is 'understanding of the world'. The philosopher of mind Tim Crane has written quite a bit about this but the key thing is that there are two quite different aspects to beliefs and other so-called 'propositional attitudes'. There is a dispositional state that is there even when you are asleep - so when you wake and go to the door hearing a knock you faint on hearing a relative has died before you have even thought about it. Then there are the states of belief that we are aware of - as when we answer 'I believe so, yes'.

Some years back I wrote a paper in Frontiers in Psychology dissecting the various forms of mental representation involved. Any meaningful causal analysis has to separate the various meanings of 'understand' or 'believe' before you can producing anything that has scientific value. Goodexperimental psychologists know all about this and work with it but clinical psychologists by and large have no clue.

Certainly, we faint on hearing that a relative has died. I cried when I heard that my daughter was born by caesarian in the next room. But strangely I felt no equivalent emotion. I was tired and relieved. The journalist I spoke to said that her hair fell out when her mother died despite the fact that she felt no stress, only relief. She suggested that the hair falling out must have meant that really she was stressed. But what could that mean, since 'being stressed' also means the feeling of being stressed that was absent.

In other words, even in familiar experience of major life events what turns out to happen does not even make sense in terms of folk psychology. If the cognition or emotion of being stressed is defined as that which makes one feel stressed then it isn't whatever causes something to happen without that feeling.

Because none of this is testable both the lay community and the clinical psychologists get away with these magic stories about emotions and cognitions. OK, there must be some processes that link up in a fairly predictable way but in fact if I look back over the numerous personal disasters I have suffered the common pattern is that the folk psychological account gets what happens wrong most of the time. And when you start talking about bipolar disorder it goes completely out of the window.

What everyone needs to see and maybe Mr Monbiot is getting taste of, is that Popper was right - right down to the boots. All this stuff about cognitions is bullshit big time. And maybe it is not so surprising that if you work in a speciality that is based entirely on bullshit that you bullshit about your research.

Wouldn't our dispositional states be affected by many of our states of belief? I can see the value of recognising the differences, but to me it also seems likely that these things affect one another and that there are times it will be appropriate to lump them together.

The labelling of different responses as being a result of 'hidden' stress, or something like that, may be problematic but that her hair fell out on hearing of her mothers death is, assuming this was not just a coincidence, surely related to matters that are widely viewed as falling within 'psychology'. Even if we were to assume that almost all psychology is rubbish, through our language there's still a shared understanding of what 'psychology' is intended to be examining and it would include matters relating to this and English words are largely defined by our shared understanding of their meaning. If you're shrinking what is considered as 'psychological' to the point where it doesn't include things like peoples relationships with others, their expectations of how life will continue, etc, then that's an unusual use of 'psychological' that I'd have thought is likely to confuse people.

I don't think this is right, but are you using 'psychological' to mean something that is genuinely understood by psychologists? I'm using it, and I think it's more widely understood as, matters that psychologists are interested in. In that sense, would you agree that health can be affected by psychological factors (even if you don't think that's a useful way of defining 'psychological')?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I suspect this is part of a routine work-up in the long-Covid clinics. When I see these patients clasping at their chests and struggling to breathe, I imagine there is probably cardiovascular and/or respiratory damage/impairment, rather than ME-related exertional intolerance. But maybe these patients would meet ME/CFS criteria for different reasons? I'm afraid I feel this is going to get quite messy over next few years.

That's how I used to breath after physical exertion in the early days of my m.e. just couldn't catch my breath and I was super fit
 
I think it's because him and his chums have gotten away with outrageous behaviour before and have never been punished for it. It makes a person very sloppy.

Yes. I suspect this may be the norm for them when dealing with those outside the inner circle.

Those within the circle or who are deemed worthy of becoming members will be treated to a charm offensive.
 
Seems like more misrepresentation of the HRA from Sharpe: "The criticisms he lists have been investigated and refuted by both the Medical Research Council and the Health Research Authority."

Can someone remind me what the Medical Research Council and the Health Research Authority actually said?

Btw I was thinking. Is there no group legal action that can be taken against the authors of the PACE trial, by those who were on the trial and were harmed? Or if someone on behalf of them, did so? Because they wrote the paper and didn’t report harms, and there was no mechanism to do so.

Also, is there no other (legal or otherwise) way of getting PACE retracted - given all its flaws? the editors of the lancet don’t agree - but is there no way of making them do it regardless, given what’s actually in PACE?

I fear that as long as PACE (and other papers?) aren’t retracted, this is the kind of pushback and claims we will keep seeing.

This post has been copied and the discussion moved to this thread:
PACE trial and legal action. Discussion thread.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Can someone remind me what the Medical Research Council and the Health Research Authority actually said?

Btw I was thinking. Is there no group legal action that can be taken against the authors of the PACE trial, by those who were on the trial and were harmed? Or if someone on behalf of them, did so? Because they wrote the paper and didn’t report harms, and there was no mechanism to do so.

Also, is there no other (legal or otherwise) way of getting PACE retracted - given all its flaws? the editors of the lancet don’t agree - but is there no way of making them do it regardless, given what’s actually in PACE?

I fear that as long as PACE (and other papers?) aren’t retracted, this is the kind of pushback and claims we will keep seeing.

If NICE truly concede that Harms have resulted, (they do have a caution on their website). why cannot the Duty of Candour be invoked? 173895784_5359657147409329_3990519041879401424_n.jpg

THE DUTY OF CANDOUR is a statutory (legal) duty to be open and honest with patients (or 'service users'), or their families, when something goes wrong that appears to have caused or could lead to significant harm in the future.

https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/Duty-of-Candour-2016-CQC-joint-branded.pdf
 
Sharpe is clearly a very intelligent person, yet seems to commit the most stupid blunders. If it were not for all the harm he has brought upon others, I would feel sorry for him, because he seems to be self-harming to a significant degree.
This is definitely how I feel. His behavior is hard to understand, and it is hard to understand why no one is reining him in.
We could be looking at this the wrong way round of course. If Sharpe is simply exhibiting behaviour that is innate to him, and perhaps to his colleagues also, then that could explain a great deal about why PACE went the way it did, and all the shenanigans since. Maybe we are just seeing Sharpe for what he really is - totally immersed in his own beliefs, and blind confidence in his own invincibility.
 
According to Garner-

“When I was in the middle of debilitating long Covid, reading endless stories about the permanent damage to organs and that the illness may last for ever made me feel worse. Scary information has an impact on all patients, even those of us who are medically trained.”

Indeed information -scary or otherwise - can have a big impact on patients. It gives them the tools to best manage their condition.

When I was still working a significant proportion of my case load were people with neurodegenerative conditions and round about the time of diagnosis it was often a fight with family and with some medical staff to ensure the patient was adequately informed of the diagnosis. Often one reason given for this was that nothing could be done to treat the conditions so why upset the patient. Whereas the reverse was true, by not informing the patient often you were effectively excluding the patient from making use of what could be offered.

For example with MND (ALS) for the patient to make best use of available aids they needed to be installed before they were needed not after, but how do you effectively introduce an aid if the individual has no idea that they will need them. Environmental controls or computer based speech aids need to be set up and people need to learn how to use them, the patient should be in charge of deciding when to use them, but they only have that control if they have access to the equipment and know how to use it. People need to engage in a process of managing their condition from the start.

Similarly with swallowing issues you need warning of what can happen in advance to know when to thicken liquids, to know what food stuffs to avoid, when to liquidise solids and when to consider entral feeding. Not to plan ahead risks aspiration pneumonia and preventable early death.

This also applies to long Covid or ME. It may be harder for these conditions than say MND because they are much less predictable, but someone can only effectively manage their own activity levels if they understand concepts like PEM and orthostatic intolerance. This is as true for those who are lucky enough to improve as for those who do not. People also need to be able to include in their plans the possibility of not recovering or of subsequent remission.

Many years ago a friend fairly early on in her ME found she felt really well when on holiday on a Greek island. Right she thought, this is the solution, she sold up everything, cashed in her savings and resigned her job which enabled her to have a six month ‘holiday’. She felt wonderful and, after the 6 months, believed herself recovered. She returned to her home country to resume her life. She initially got temporary work, but after two weeks relapsed, with the cycle of PEM and crashes kicking in. She was never able to undertake paid work again. She was financially in a considerably worse position than before. Because she had resigned her permanent job she had lost all her work related sickness benefits and any pension rights. A six month investment in her health left her financially disadvantaged for the next forty years.

[corrected typos]
 
Last edited:
Yes. At the time, I never wrote a thorough rebuttal of why the HRA report said nothing about the substantive problems with PACE. It was essentially a whitewash.

It so complicated to write a thorough rebuttal for.

I think that one of the ways PACE has fought back is that so many people feel ground down by the process of responding seriously to stuff like this. It's difficult to stay motivated.
 
We could be looking at this the wrong way round of course. If Sharpe is simply exhibiting behaviour that is innate to him, and perhaps to his colleagues also, then that could explain a great deal about why PACE went the way it did, and all the shenanigans since. Maybe we are just seeing Sharpe for what he really is - totally immersed in his own beliefs, and blind confidence in his own invincibility.

well this is definitely true. It's cult-like behavior, essentially, or like dogmatic ideological beliefs.
 
Back
Top Bottom