Tjenesten og MEg | The health service and ME, Sintef FaFo

I also wonder about this section. I think it’s very ambiguous.

If we take «social relationship» to mean any aspects of the interaction between e.g. NAV and a patient, including the consequences of mandated treatments and measures, and the abuse and neglect, and we take «disease» to mean the totality of the patient’s health, then the statement is so vague that it doesn’t really mean anything.

But it could also be interpreted as saying that the patient’s ME/CFS could improve if NAV trusted them and didn’t abuse them. And that is a problematic claim because while some might be able to avoid deterioration due to repeated and/or excessive PEM caused by NAV, we really don’t have a foundation to support general statement regarding that avoiding PEM could improve your ME/CFS (i.e. not maintaining it to the same degree anymore).

If we take it even further, it could be interpreted as saying that if the patient just felt trusted etc. they would get better.

I understand that it’s a summary and that Kielland & Co might have said and intended something more specific and unproblematic. But the context of the meeting should make it obvious that we need precision if we want to avoid further harm to the patients.

 

That it seems reasonable. So one level up from possible, but not to the level of likely, basically? But also mainly about how someone hearing it would not have any immediate objections if they're not familiar with it.

Which is really what the ideologues are aiming for. And there is much more apt word for it: pseudoscience. They explicitly want explanations that sound like something a physician would know, using medical terms, even though they're just speculative nonsense.

Or maybe bullshit would be more apt, but in the context they are using it, they basically amount to the same thing.