The European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM)

nah, ..... it's NDS, Nodding Dog Syndrome....

 

Not anymore. And the likes counts have been turned off too.

 

When it's actually preferable to hold up a single recent anecdote out of millions of cases over decades of "research" and thousands of studies, you know you aren't dealing with serious people.

I don't mean Sharpe here, dude has an effective con and he is milking it. It's the audience that is the problem, people who should know better, like a conference of physicists gushing over a perpetual motion machine and blasting anyone who criticizes how it's impossible. Anyone not pushing back on this have disqualified themselves as medical experts, they are required to tell the damn emperor to cloth themselves properly.

 

"Psychogynecology"

What in the what now? This is basically what a school would like after decades of the students running the school. Completely inbred system, everyone who is in on the cool crowd gets a 100% grade and they can write and grade their own homework for the class they wrote themselves.

You know the old saying of "the insane running the asylum", I'm not sure that would actually be a downgrade at this point, this profession has completely lost all connection to reality.

 

N = 1. Nothing new there. Looking after number one is their stock in trade.

 

So anecdotal evidence is completely believable to these people when it comes from are a professor who can muster up a lot of media coverage and the anecdote is supportive of the BPS view BUT if the anecdotes of harm from CBT/GET of hundreds of thousands of patients ( majority female) over decades are contrary to the BPS view then they are dismissed and are of no validity, just wrong thinking?

 

Circles. Those circles just keep on going round.

Wonder what researchers in unrelated fields think.

 

And vexatious.

 

https://growthpitstop.com/2020/08/01/strategic-projects-suffering-from-nodding-dog-syndrome/

I wasn't making it up...!

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1400442056741253126


eta:

https://www.eapm2021.com/program/

https://www.eapm2021.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/EAPM2021_ProgramAbstractbook_20210531.pdf

 

Of course Paul Garner will be there. Of course, gotta milk the N=1 because decades haven't found a single bit of useful evidence.

 

IBS features very prominently. Sad to think that without Marshall, peptic ulcers would be right there alongside, this field is unable to learn from experience. Oh and some PMS for good measure, because why not, the womb may not be wandering but it's still misbehaving, or whatever.

Honestly this gives insight into religious studies, how people can study the same text for millennia and always have something new to say about it, because they aren't studying the thing, they are studying interpretations of it and what it means to them personally, and there is an infinite combination of that. There is very little variation overall, it's basically like different renditions of the same original text. How do they not get bored to death after hours of discussing the exact same things over and over again with tiny variations?

It's honestly weird how anti-science reactionaries always point out to stuff like fruit fly research, which is very useful, as examples of BS academia. This right here is the real BS factory, this is seriously a proper jobs program, it could be shut down tomorrow, everything deleted, and nothing of value would be lost. It's a fascinating study in human folly, how we can lie to ourselves, individually and in groups.

Clearly the issues with ME research have little to do with being research about ME, it's typical of what the field of "psychosomatic medicine" produces, it's all the same bland derivative of the same handful of topics and framings. Because they are talking about themselves, the issues are irrelevant, everything is about their perception of it, their reaction to it, how they handle it. It has nothing to do with the patients themselves. This is genuinely fascinating, in a very depressing way to be honest, that this nonsense has power over vulnerable people.

There are even weird nuggets that reveal the whole thing, that they are knowingly pushing a belief system and just can't stop it:

Even to them the belief that it works is just that, a belief. Amazing inability to self-reflect. Or maybe they are all aware this is basically kayfabe and are content because their work is only about bringing more work. Who knows?

But seriously: wow. This is the problem, right here, that the rest of medicine takes this narcissistic jobs program seriously. No wonder it's all so broken.

 

‘Psychiatry and Medicine’

Abstract: Psychiatry’s historical relationship with the rest of medicine has been ambivalent: what will its future relationship be like?

23 November 2021, 9:30 (Tuesday, 7th week, Michaelmas 2021)

• Speaker: Professor Michael Sharpe
  
  
  https://talks.ox.ac.uk/talks/id/f5c20572-ddd1-48ec-8d1f-29adcc3f5a85/

 

My preference would be: none. It's clearly a legacy field for the most part, a mish-mash of bad ideas that should mostly be deprecated along with demons and fairies. Mostly, there's probably a 10% or so that could be useful, if it could stand up to rigorous scrutiny.

That would be ideal for everyone involved. In fact it would probably be in the top 10 of major medical breakthroughs in history. Not the top 10%, the top 10. It will come to pass, but clearly humanity has not abandoned magical thinking, and you can't ever go wrong stroking the ego of MDs.

 

For those not aware, The Journal of Psychosomatic Research (JPR) is the incestuous organ of the EAPM.

EAPM are also collaborators is this EURONET-SOMA project:

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00151/full

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychiatry, 14 May 2018 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00151
van der Feltz-Cornelis Christina M., Elfeddali Iman, Werneke Ursula, Malt Ulrik F., Van den Bergh Omer, Schaefert Rainer, Kop Willem J., Lobo Antonio, Sharpe Michael, Söllner Wolfgang, Löwe Bernd

(...)

Conclusion
Based on consensus among renowned European experts in the field of SSD, BDD, and FD, this Delphi study established a research agenda with the following research priorities.

(1) Assessment of diagnostic profiles relevant to course and treatment outcome.

(2) Development and evaluation of new, effective interventions.

(3) Validation studies on questionnaires or semi-structured interviews that assess chronic medical conditions in the context of SSD, BDD, and FD.

(4) Research into patients preferences for diagnosis and treatment of Somatic Symptom Disorders and related disorders (SSRD).

(5) Development of new methodologic designs to identify and explore mediators and moderators of clinical course and treatment outcomes.

(6) Translational research exploring how psychological and somatic symptoms develop from somatic conditions and biological and behavioral pathogenic factors. Such translational research is needed to improve knowledge that may be helpful to develop conceptual models and classification further.

(7) Development of new, effective interventions to personalize treatment.

(8) Implementation studies of treatment interventions in different settings, such as primary care, occupational care, general hospital and specialty mental health settings. Such research should explore how interventions can best be implemented in the various health care settings and health services systems all over Europe.


Hah!

23. Frances A. The new somatic symptom disorder in DSM-5 risks mislabeling many people as mentally ill. BMJ (2013) 346:f1580. doi: 10.1136/bmj.f1580

(...)

26. Chapman S. Rationale for Proposal for Deletion of the Entity: Bodily distress disorder. Proposal submitted by Suzy Chapman, Dx Revision Watch, via ICD-11 Beta draft Proposal Mechanism 2017 March. Available online at: https://dxrevisionwatch.com/2017/03...oposed-new-category-bodily-distress-disorder/

---------------------------------

And this:

Functional somatic disorders: discussion paper for a new common classification for research and clinical use

https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-020-1505-4

• Christopher Burton,
• Per Fink,
• Peter Henningsen,
• Bernd Löwe &
• Winfried Rief
• on behalf of the EURONET-SOMA Group

BMC Medicine volume 18, Article number: 34 (2020)

(...)

Main body

We outline five problems pointing to the need for a new classification: (1) developments in understanding aetiological mechanisms; (2) the current division of disorders according to the treating specialist; (3) failure of current classifications to cover the variety of disorders and their severity (for example, patients with symptoms from multiple organs systems); (4) the need to find acceptable categories and labels for patients that promote therapeutic partnership; and (5) the need to develop clinical services and research for people with severe disorders.

We propose ‘functional somatic disorders’ (FSD) as an umbrella term for various conditions characterised by persistent and troublesome physical symptoms. FSDs are diagnosed clinically, on the basis of characteristic symptom patterns. As with all diagnoses, a diagnosis of FSD should be made after considering other possible somatic and mental differential diagnoses. We propose that FSD should occupy a neutral space within disease classifications, favouring neither somatic disease aetiology, nor mental disorder. FSD should be subclassified as (a) multisystem, (b) single system, or (c) single symptom. While additional specifiers may be added to take account of psychological features or co-occurring diseases, neither of these is sufficient or necessary to make the diagnosis. We recommend that FSD criteria are written so as to harmonise with existing syndrome diagnoses. Where currently defined syndromes fall within the FSD spectrum – and also within organ system-specific chapters of a classification – they should be afforded dual parentage (for example, irritable bowel syndrome can belong to both gastrointestinal disorders and FSD).

Conclusion
We propose a new classification, ‘functional somatic disorder’, which is neither purely somatic nor purely mental, but occupies a neutral space between these two historical poles. This classification reflects both emerging aetiological evidence of the complex interactions between brain and body and the need to resolve the historical split between somatic and mental disorders.

-------------------

And they've arrived a little late to the ICD-11 party:

WHO/ICD Revision statement, February 07, 2020:

"The ICD-11 codes are now frozen. Proposed changes to the classification that would result in a code change are not permitted..."

 

Prof Michael Sharpe has been elected president of EAPM.

(Per Fink is Deputy Secretary)

https://www.eapm.eu.com/eapm/board-and-administration/

 

Paul Garner has been elected as the patient study cohort, the non blind control group, the Director of faith based medicine and the tea lady. He also gets personal use of the wheelbarrow they use to roll him out in for every conference.

Someone should look into the last one, that's got to be a tax benefit of some kind.