RCPCH conference 2019 abstract: When symptoms dictate a young person’s life..., Gamper et al.

So basically: medical care is useful for chronic disease, but if you add psychological support to the mix you can imply that it's what helped. Sure, whatever. Thank you, tiger-repelling rock, for your role in there not being any tigers around.

A trust-based relationship is not therapeutic, it is a necessary condition for adequate medical care and it's a two-way relationship. Again with mixing correlation and causation. Notable that in complex chronic diseases, the trust is initially broken by systemic discrimination denying a medical problem is present at all, but somehow that does not find its way into the psychosomatic ideology, which rejects the idea that it could possibly be harmful in any way.

Also of note: being discriminated, even traumatized, out of adequate medical care significantly worsened her situation. How about skipping that initial step? Ah, no, unfortunately, not with the MUS paradigm, which specifically advises against this.

Getting close to the point while still missing it entirely.

 

I'm sure symptoms don't dictate her life anymore since she can now "walk with help". She is also "more hopeful and confident" about the future after a bunch of psychiatrists said "you will totally recover trust us!" so basically she is cured

 

The trouble is I'm not sure I trust this report much more than I would one of Freud's case reports.

 

Perhaps they could conduct a study into adverse effects precipitated by traumatic legal disputes. How would one control for such a trial? (Trial in the scientific, not legal, sense.)

 

Because these are not acknowledged, particularly with HPV, therefore it must be something else.
FII /safeguarding for this is not uncommon here.

 

I agree. There is no good reason to think that HPV caused a neuroimmune reaction. Her problems have to be assumed to have some other origin.

But FII sounds like the wrong analysis.

My worry with these cases is that the child is caught between physicians giving what are probably unhelpful labels like EDS and MCAS and psychiatrists who do not understand what they are doing. The authors may have ended up providing useful support during a time when the patient recovered but nobody can tell. The conclusion is that what is needed is a multidisciplinary team but the formal evidence for that is zero, just as it is for the other approaches.

 

The abstract reads like a cherry-picked narrative. I don't trust this narrative either, unless the individual in question agreed it was true.

The likely reality is there was a lot of medical malpractice and the patient is still severely ill.

Terry Segall, one of the authors also wrote this in a recent review. "The Lightning Process has been shown to be effective when added to medical care."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31045885

Yes, a pseudoscientific thereapy tested in a single small unblinded study utilising subjective, rather than objective outcome measures is somehow considered sufficient evidence of effectiveness.

 

Merged thread

https://bmjpaedsopen.bmj.com/content/bmjpo/3/Suppl_1/A32.1.full.pdf

WHEN SYMPTOMS DICTATE A YOUNG PERSONS’LIFE–AND THE IMPORTANCE OF BUILDING TRUST AND TEAMWORK IN REHABILITATION OF PATIENTS WITH COMPLEX CONDITIONS

1,2LJ Gamper*,1J Simpson,1,3SMoeda,1TY Segal.
1Children and Young People’sSpecialistAdolescent Services, University College Hospital, London, UK;2Department of Paediatricsand Adolescent Medicine, University Children’s Hospital, Zurich, Switzerland;3Departmentof Paediatrics, Hospital Beatriz Ângelo, Loures, Portugal

 

It's a case report of a single patient.

So poor, and possibly harmful, care for the first five years.

Sure, never mind actually being able to do stuff, or health actually improving, the real metric is confidence and hopefulness...

 

Highlighting and paragraph breaks mine.

 

Literally the main argument of every pseudoscience and self-help gurus out there: we can't show any objective benefits but you'll feel great and hopeful. Which is nice if you're healthy. Definitely useless when you're not. That's possibly the worst possible argument to use in this context, frankly. It reveals how it is both hollow and somehow completely full of shit.

 

How considerate of the current disbelieving professionals to acknowledge the traumatic impact of the previous disbelieving professionals.

 

This

 

Clearly, the solution to gaslighting is more gaslighting.

Then you need a bit more gaslighting to "challenge" the damage done by the gaslighting performed to gaslight the gaslighting.