#ThereForME campaign / Building an NHS that’s there for Long Covid and ME

The link just takes me to the general Sky website, and I can't find it as a story. It's one of those sites where if a Search function exists at all, they hide it pretty bloody well.
 
I just clicked on the picture in post 180 and got the video.

Oonagh is excellent, as everyone says.
It is time some members of the Royal College of Physicians took notice of what she is saying.
Time a medical specialty admitted that somebody needs to provide long term support.
 
Dolphin said:
3-minute clip on Sky News’ Twitter. It would be good if that could be shared so they see interest in topic.
Click to expand...

Great clip really well communicated, which is difficult to do.

My only suggestion would be that it's not so much it is/was thought to be 'psychological,' as it is that symptoms are 'made up' consciously or unconsciously because pwME are either crazy or lazy and for some kind of secondary gain like not having to work.

I'm not really sure what the best way to communicate that simply and concisely is. I mention this just to avoid the possibility of accidentally pitting mental health issues against physical ones. Maybe saying 'psychosomatic' instead of 'psychological' is clearer.
 
Effective interview.

chillier said:
I'm not really sure what the best way to communicate that simply and concisely is. I mention this just to avoid the possibility of accidentally pitting mental health issues against physical ones. Maybe saying 'psychosomatic' instead of 'psychological' is clearer.
Click to expand...
I agree.

It is important to keep the focus of criticism on the psychosomatic wing of the psych professions.

Our argument is not with psych in general, and never has been. It is with the psychosomatic wing and their methodologically and ethically bankrupt claims.

(Of course, the broader profession has to take a fair chunk of the blame for failing to keep their psychosomatic wing in line. But the bulk of the blame lies with that wing of the profession for misleading everybody else and driving the whole show off the rails.)
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I just clicked on the picture in post 180 and got the video.

Oonagh is excellent, as everyone says.
It is time some members of the Royal College of Physicians took notice of what she is saying.
Time a medical specialty admitted that somebody needs to provide long term support.
Click to expand...
Which speciality has claimed Long Covid?

I love how “thought to be psychological” is always spoken of in the past sense. “We’re smarter than that type of thinking, aren’t you?”
 
MrMagoo said:
Which speciality has claimed Long Covid?

I love how “thought to be psychological” is always spoken of in the past sense. “We’re smarter than that type of thinking, aren’t you?”
Click to expand...
it also doesn't emphasise what a malign type of 'psychology' we are talking about under this term. I can't say I could better it (or that it would be appropriate unless a one-liner in the context and point being made), but it's one of those conundrums of quite how you can get across that really truly there are a bunch of people who've spent decades making up nonsense research to suggest 'it's our personality' from any angle possible and that their 'treatment' was 're-education' aka brainwashing to 'act normal' so noone had to put up with us seeming disabled as that is unacceptable, not that any form of anything that bunch work on wouldn't be disgustingly harmful and wrong of course. And make up who we are which adds another extreme injury on top of being so ill, isolation of the type noone can begin to imagine - because you get de-existed and even you as a person with the history of you being rewritten out.
 
bobbler said:
it also doesn't emphasise what a malign type of 'psychology' we are talking about under this term. I can't say I could better it (or that it would be appropriate unless a one-liner in the context and point being made), but it's one of those conundrums of quite how you can get across that really truly there are a bunch of people who've spent decades making up nonsense research to suggest 'it's our personality' from any angle possible and that their 'treatment' was 're-education' aka brainwashing to 'act normal' so noone had to put up with us seeming disabled as that is unacceptable, not that any form of anything that bunch work on wouldn't be disgustingly harmful and wrong of course. And make up who we are which adds another extreme injury on top of being so ill, isolation of the type noone can begin to imagine - because you get de-existed and even you as a person with the history of you being rewritten out.
Click to expand...
I’m happy for the “general public” who didn’t know much about ME/CFS to hear it wasn’t researched properly because it was thought to be psychological, but we know it’s biomedical. Also it can be very serious and deadly. Thats enough for now. The “post office scandal” type public inquiry can come later.
 
MrMagoo said:
I love how “thought to be psychological” is always spoken of in the past sense. “We’re smarter than that type of thinking, aren’t you?”
Click to expand...
Always. And it's really pissing me off that it's pretty much always. I almost never notice framing that it's an ongoing scandal, even in writen articles you get a tone that things used to be this way, but have changed since. In a rapid conversation you can understand it, it goes so quickly, but in writing it's a different matter.

The bigger scandal is that it's still happening, but that's just part of the bigger scandal that psychosomatic ideology has never been more influential than it is today, while most people think this stuff ended in the 80s. The bad stuff anyway, psychologizing legitimate diseases. Psychologizing disputed illnesses? Well that's the same thing but with the difference of hindsight. Which is purely a matter of perception, which illnesses are disputed, but when it comes to psychosomatic ideology, it literally always is all perception anyway.

Seriously I think that most people think this doesn't happen anymore. As in at all. But if you point out examples like us, they're considered OK. Just like it used to be when asthma, MS and others were psychologized. Funny how that works, ever-shifting goalposts.
 
rvallee said:
Always. And it's really pissing me off that it's pretty much always. I almost never notice framing that it's an ongoing scandal, even in writen articles you get a tone that things used to be this way, but have changed since. In a rapid conversation you can understand it, it goes so quickly, but in writing it's a different matter.

The bigger scandal is that it's still happening, but that's just part of the bigger scandal that psychosomatic ideology has never been more influential than it is today, while most people think this stuff ended in the 80s. The bad stuff anyway, psychologizing legitimate diseases. Psychologizing disputed illnesses? Well that's the same thing but with the difference of hindsight. Which is purely a matter of perception, which illnesses are disputed, but when it comes to psychosomatic ideology, it literally always is all perception anyway.

Seriously I think that most people think this doesn't happen anymore. As in at all. But if you point out examples like us, they're considered OK. Just like it used to be when asthma, MS and others were psychologized. Funny how that works, ever-shifting goalposts.
Click to expand...
But she did talk about that generation of doctors trained the wrong way. She did acknowledge we’re still facing that nonsense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom