Review Long COVID – neurological or somatoform disease?, 2024, Tényi, Tényi, Janszky

[Midnattsol]

I have never got a reply from the editor-in-chief of this journal to my letter but I have found something else. This is not related to ME/CFS but it is a letter to the editor by one of the authors of the paper in this thread, Tamás Tényi.

The paper the letter addresses is about how non-binary people are seen in medicine. I have not read the original but I have come across this response to it by Tényi. I would say I see some similarities to how he and other BPS people talk about pwME.

It is open access and I have asked ChatGPT to translate part of it:



Yep, the only reason that there are more people requesting gender-transition surgery is because it is psychological, not because it is becoming somewhat more accepted by society than back in those days.

Also, teenagers suddenly realizing they are transgender is false, they are actually not, they are just suffering from psychiatric disorders etc and don't know what they are talking about. And not for example because they were quiet about it because they didn't know how to address this. I mean we are talking about fragile teenagers here. But alternatively, 15-16 is still very young. Why is it so impossible to realize they are transgender at that age?

Everyone who says otherwise has an unscientific agenda and they are all wrong. The people who actually know the real truth are attacked and harassed and it is the media generating the whole thing anyway.

I don't want to start a debate about the topic, I'm just sharing this because it looks like the same playbook to me.

We see the overlap in Norway too, with the same people saying the same things about pwME and trans.

 

[Wyva]

Btw, the author of the original paper only included a short reply to Tényi's letter:

Rough translation:

Dear Professor,

I read with great interest your valuable addition, which confirms the timeliness of the topic I have chosen.​

Respectfully,
Noémi Somorjai
​

I have actually skimmed through her original paper now and I think this is a very elegant way of saying: thank you for proving my point why this is so important to talk about.

 

[rvallee]

It looks very much like the same playbook..

Clearly thinking that their opinion is more valid than the actual life experience of the people they are imagining experience life in a different way, is basically the common thread here. Very aristocratic entitlement.

Which is anti-science, it's how things used to be done before the scientific revolution, back when people knew next to nothing, and for quite a while until science produced enough answers that there were few things open to speculation anymore. Unfortunately, all things science hasn't explained are still subject to the same level of ignorant speculative opinion-having. Nothing's changed about that, because human nature hasn't changed.

Which is what makes all of this so hard, that this isn't about us, it's about human nature and how people behave when they can ignore reality and substitute their own. If we crack that dam, there is a flood of nonsense that has to be addressed. It's too embarrassing, and they can simply not bother, they have the power to do so, since governments either support this, or don't care.

Recently, I watched a shot documentary on the UK post office scandal (by youtube Cold Fusion), and it's roughly the same thing: institutions who know they are wrong, but don't have to care because they are comfortable and safe from peasants behind their castle walls. It's also remarkable how the post office scandal is so tiny and barely a scandal compared to what's been done to people with ME, and that's just one part of this crisis of validity that the medical profession has left rotting for decades. So the rot just keeps on corrupting more things.

 

[Yann04]

Clearly thinking that their opinion is more valid than the actual life experience of the people they are imagining experience life in a different way, is basically the common thread here. Very aristocratic entitlement.

Which is anti-science, it's how things used to be done before the scientific revolution, back when people knew next to nothing, and for quite a while until science produced enough answers that there were few things open to speculation anymore.

That’s unfortunately much of the fields of psychology/psychiatry.

Their methods are broken. They can’t reliably distinguish truth from bias. But it doesn’t matter. The fields don’t exist to find objective truth, they exist to legitimise opinions and policy. The replication crisis is a feature, not a bug.