Harvard's "med" and "ed" is an actual disgrace

Apparently, Harvard just released a medical education module that is anything but.

USAWG already has ahold of it and so does #MEAction but I haven't yet seen it mentioned here.

The title is 'Understanding Chronic Fatigue Syndrome', but if that's something you're interested in you should likely go elsewhere.

Link: https://www.health.harvard.edu/prom...ations/understanding-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

One advocate chose the following quotes just to give us all a taster of what's inside the box:

Yes, folks, the act now is important because the course is available for the low, low price of $14.99!

(I half expected to see that if you act now you can order TWO courses that minimize a life-changing illness and you "just pay shipping and handling".)

[EDIT: Oh gosh they GO THERE.

]

Just astounding.

Seriously?! Are we still onto ME is caused by "thoughts"?

The content also lapses, calling CFS "chronic fatigue" and implying that the disease is, in fact, solely long-lasting fatigue. Even Fukuda isn't just that.

But why bother with facts where there's a buck to be made? Am I right or am I right?

 

Surprised? Really?

History does repeat itself if you only bother to look.

All of you who are looking to the predictable Ivies or such. or NIH or CDC to fix your problems: Take note.

 

What you're seeing is outrage, not surprise.

Additionally, considering the scope of the work that must be done, private industry doesn't have the wherewithal or desire to pick up the slack. That's why advocacy matters: we have to continue fighting for the gains that we are making, and we have to rally when we drop behind.

The idea that my outrage is due to a wellspring of faith in the American medical system would be a misinterpretation.

 

Is there any ethics boards that have jurisdiction here?

 

What....??!

Is that a hoax? Some sort of social experiment...? 'how desperate are patients to buy into anything - especially with flashy marketing' That's the only way I can make sense of that page.

Harvard on top, but the rest of it screams out SCAM...! The page have every marker of alternative therapy marketing (well, minus patients stories). Even a big, flashy red 'buy now'-button marked - "Act now! There is real hope and help."

 

I have always read stuff like this as meaning "scam cures for a disease that's a sham". The more they believe the illness is just 'people wanting attention' or 'focusing on widely-experienced sensations' or 'due to lots of overwork' the more ridiculous the proposed intervention.

A scale, where the Lightning Process is allll the way up to the top.

 

I wonder whether Dr Komaroff could look into it. This is quite distressing.

 

Here's a more detailed description of what they are selling - "Understandig Chronic Fatigue Syndrome - a bit less flashy, ut no less disturbing.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/diseases-and-conditions/understanding-chronic-fatigue-syndrome

But that's not in your guidelines for treatment, GET? Cause for official complaint?

And Harvard promoting chiropractic and acupuncture....?

edit: moved a sentence to above quote, (hopefully) making the post/my point more clear

 

About the other e-book - "Boosting your energy":

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/boosting-your-energy


From the 'exerpt' - a chapter about "Energy and exercise":

Not for ME-people.... :-/ Doing more takes away my sleep first of all.

 

I don't think that's grounds for complaint. There are numerous studies showing acupuncture helps with pain... we wouldn't get far arguing against things only because they're outside the mainstream.

Waaait, I remember this. I could never access the full text...

That one lists CFS as a "disease that causes fatigue" so there's the acknowledgement that fatigue is ONE symptom amongst many that contribute to CFS.

 

Oh, no that was an additional stray thought - and agree.

I ment the bit about "gradually increasing exercise levels." Sorry, I see my post was less than clear.

Edit: But also for CBT - wasn't there a US official report finding no/very little support for it, and GET?

 

Yes -- AHRQ.

 

Hey, everyone. I have word from a couple of sources that Ron Tompkins and WenZhong Xiao, both of Harvard, are on the case.

[Edit: And I've introduced Mike to Wenzhong via email in case he wants 'in'... and just got a response. They totally do already know each other!]

 

So they are Acting Now! Good to hear.

 

It was not well-considered to begin with I guess.

We've seen so much crappiness over the years that my knee-jerk response is really to be infuriated and tired like... we have to fight a lot of the same battles over and over again. I can only imagine how people feel who've been at this for decades.

But it's also really embarrassing to have a place like Harvard publish something like this, and trying to make a buck off of the name 'Harvard'. It's like an Ivy League transforming into Dr Oz before one's very eyes. Cringeworthy.

And really unethical to sell this bad advice to people who're sick and may feel like they have no recourse but to try everything put before them. We all know how pressured we are to keep trying/doing or else we "don't want to be well". I can see a new patient buying this and really thinking it's going to help...

Okay, back to being outraged.

I'd better read the thing so that I know how bad it is, too. I'll check and see if anyone has purchased it.

Let's not make it more than one of us, okay?

 

Maybe Harvard should be informed that even the UK House of Commons has just voted to drop CBT and GET.

 

Can we actually claim that? I'm too tired to search for the full details of what was voted on right now but I don't remember wording being specific enough for us to be able to claim they voted to drop CBT and GET.

 

Oh, cool, thanks. Think that must show how frazzled I was that day trying to keep on top of the social media side of things.