Paul Garner on Long Covid and ME/CFS - BMJ articles and other media.

Call me cynical, but we've seen this sort of behaviour before from M Sharpe who did his best on Twitter to provoke 'attacks' so they could be used by a journalist in an article claiming he'd suffered harassment.

I don't think Garner's tweets today are just an innocent coincidence with him meeting the organisation that has awarded the Maddox prize to Wessely in the past.


Could be. But would SAS risk the wide exposure of Garner's association with Norwegian Lightning Process Trainers. There is twitter and other history.
 
Paul Garner in the BMJ Blog 25th January 2021:

"I was put in touch with a PhD candidate in psychology from Norway who had completely recovered from post viral fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) years ago and offered to share the recovery story. The story was very similar: no previous illness, no psychological problems, only long-lasting debilitating symptoms after an infection.

I was asked, “are you open to the idea that you can have an impact on your symptoms with your conscious mind?” I thought back to an earlier experience in my 30s with being able regulate my tinnitus after quinine, and said yes, straight away.

This opened the door that led to my recovery.... "

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/25/paul-garner-on-his-recovery-from-long-covid/


Not sure SAS would want to open that can of worms, after all, the audience for Garner's mind over matter nonsense is by no means limited to patients these days.
 
The trouble is that the SAS are really just a lot of old fogeys having a Mad Hatter's Tea Party.
:laugh:
5015278302126_600x.jpg
 


total recovery in less than 4 weeks. says no LP(?)


Yes, as per other comments - he's rubbing salt into wounds here --- "recovered ME/CFS patient changed my beliefs, used cognitive approaches and GET, which led to my recovery; Nov: holiday. I have not been through LP".
So, if you'd followed his messianic advice/example you too would be diving on a coral reef somewhere --- tad insensitive, as well as totally bogus.
See he's now "emeritus", so he'll have lots more time to link up with his LP buddies --- what they could achieve together (as long as you don't try to measure it objectively!).
Could we just nickname him "Pastor Paul Garner" --- someone might just try to wind him up with that on social media.

Sense about Science -- sure someone has suggested (Non) Sense about Science
 
apologies if I'm lowering the tone/standards here but thanks for posting this @rvallee :

"
Replying to
@PaulGarnerWoof
The natural LC recovery rates are in the range of 50-70% in the first 6 months. You are literally doing the same thing as people who drink their urine because it "cured" something. As an expert in medical evidence, you have reached absolute rock bottom, sir. Congrats!"
 
"I was put in touch with a PhD candidate in psychology from Norway who had completely recovered from post viral fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) years ago and offered to share the recovery story. The story was very similar: no previous illness, no psychological problems, only long-lasting debilitating symptoms after an infection.
Oh, that could be just any PhD candidate in psychology from Norway. Such a mystery.

Did SaS ever say anything about the LP? Do they even know what they are promoting here?
 
apologies if I'm lowering the tone/standards here but thanks for posting this @rvallee :

"
Replying to
@PaulGarnerWoof
The natural LC recovery rates are in the range of 50-70% in the first 6 months. You are literally doing the same thing as people who drink their urine because it "cured" something. As an expert in medical evidence, you have reached absolute rock bottom, sir. Congrats!"

And the dude is retiring. His last professional effort as an expert in clinical evidence is pushing a N=1 narrative that relates to a MLM cult-like business that is basically 11/10 on the pseudoscience scale and "enabled" him to overcome better than 50:50 odds.

The problem here is a system that leads people down this sorry path. The thinking and culture of medical evidence is clearly and obviously broken. Because here he is, celebrated for pushing awful pseudoscience.

Sometimes a movie quote says it all:
No country for old men said:
If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?
 
If Garner is just trying to get a reaction, as appears to be the case in above tweeting, it's better to just ignore him

If it were just him shouting into the wilderness, I would agree with ignoring him. Sadly a lot of people are taking notice of him - media, Sense about Science, people with Long Covid who may be harmed by his advice. So I think it's worth challenging his claims politely and providing alternative perspectives and evidence.
 
So, if you'd followed his messianic advice/example you too would be diving on a coral reef somewhere --- tad insensitive, as well as totally bogus.

That's not what he said.

I've seen people making assumptions about his health that were not supported by what he said. I can see that this would be irritating.
 
If it were just him shouting into the wilderness, I would agree with ignoring him. Sadly a lot of people are taking notice of him - media, Sense about Science, people with Long Covid who may be harmed by his advice. So I think it's worth challenging his claims politely and providing alternative perspectives and evidence.
I think at this point everyone has heard the counter arguments. Perhaps one or two responses are fine. But besides that I do not see any point in any more substantial engagement. And, I think, paying more attention to him probably has the effect of amplifying him more (both in terms of encouraging him and drawing more attention to him)

Do not feed the trolls, as they say
 
I think at this point everyone has heard the counter arguments.

I agree with @Trish's point above. There are more and more new LC patients every day - many who have no idea of LC itself, let alone the existence or history of ME/CFS. I think it is worthwhile pushing back, lest the naive observer take lack of dissent as agreement.

Do not feed the trolls, as they say
However, I am happy to observe that "@cfs_research" had zero likes/engagement in the replies, which is completely appropriate.
 
And the dude is retiring. His last professional effort as an expert in clinical evidence is pushing a N=1 narrative that relates to a MLM cult-like business that is basically 11/10 on the pseudoscience scale and "enabled" him to overcome better than 50:50 odds.

The problem here is a system that leads people down this sorry path. The thinking and culture of medical evidence is clearly and obviously broken. Because here he is, celebrated for pushing awful pseudoscience.

Sometimes a movie quote says it all:

Doubt we can hope he's retiring but I think Jonathan suggested - "Best to forget about them entirely"*. Thanks again for challenging him on Twitter.

*https://www.s4me.info/threads/paul-...les-and-other-media.15629/page-90#post-440793
 
That's not what he said.

I've seen people making assumptions about his health that were not supported by what he said. I can see that this would be irritating.

Think we'll have to disagree on that one.

To me, in one paragraph/parable he sets out his decline and recovery [through his own mental powers no less] and announces that now he's off for his post recovery/retirement holiday --- picture diving on a coral reef. So long suckers, you chose the other path!
I don't think you can separate the picture from the statements.


 
Think we'll have to disagree on that one.

To me, in one paragraph/parable he sets out his decline and recovery [through his own mental powers no less] and announces that now he's off for his post recovery/retirement holiday --- picture diving on a coral reef. So long suckers, you chose the other path!
I don't think you can separate the picture from the statements.




The picture is part of the tweet, but it doesn't say "So long suckers, you chose the other path!"

He doesn't say "if you'd followed his messianic advice/example you too would be diving on a coral reef somewhere".

I think that there are problems with some of the things Garner has actually said, but I also think that there's a problem with some patients responding to things in his comments that aren't there. That's something that needs to be avoided imo.
 
Back
Top Bottom