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

They consider the bio-psycho-social model to be a possible explanatory model for the maintenance of symptoms, but based on their own social science research (the social component of the model) they can only support hypotheses that social relationships between patients and services are of such a nature that they can have a disease-maintaining, and perhaps aggravating, effect.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Utsikt said:
I take plausible to mean that it is likely. How do you define it?
Click to expand...
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.
 
I always took plausible to mean merely within the bounds of possible, not likely. But apparently the dictionary disagrees with me.
 
The report contains this diagram:

1751282799752.png

Can anyone find what number of persons that had experience of each of treatments in the graph?

I don't find those number anywhere in the report.

Edit: I note that this thread is older than the report I link to. So maybe this thread started about a previous version of the report.
 
Last edited:
Liie said:
The report contains this diagram:

View attachment 26804

Can anyone find what number of persons that had experience of each of treatments in the graph?

I don't find those number anywhere in the report.

Edit: I note that this thread is older than the report I link to. So maybe this thread started about a previous version of the report.
Click to expand...
There is a source at the bottom of the next page (bidraget er hentet fra). Maybe there’s more info there?
 
The consistency with which the official treatments are always at the bottom, and the things they advise against at the top, really deserves a paper of its own. Maybe several papers. It's actually remarkable how well it holds up.

Just like all the papers and reports showing the disastrous state of the overall situation, the overwhelming misery, and how it entirely contrasts with the lies coming from health care services and physicians about how things are rather fine and there's no need to do anything. Both realities are represented, yet only one of those is true.

Reality has that ability to just continue existing even when people don't believe in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom