Trudie Chalder, BPS and MUS proponent - presentations, interviews and news

MEMarge said:
OK I'm being too optimistic again
Click to expand...

It would certainly be a positive approach and promote mental wellness for millions.

It might help reduce by 10% the NHS costs, or at least I definitely could misquote research to support that, and by the rule of a third see some 30% of psychologists and psychiatrists actually turn their attention to something useful.
 
Can't recall what % of people with fatigue are distressed, according to presentation - 40%?

Maybe they're "distressed" because they're overworked, lacking sleep, living pay cheque to pay cheque, they have a horrible job, relationship etc. They may, or probably are reacting logically to real life circumstances that aren't so fabulous. But instead of seeing that the person's life is a little bit, or a lot poo, they are labeled as having faulty beliefs. And, encouraged to think more positively, and go for a walk.

What people often need is actual practical help. Real change, even just a bit to help out, not counseling that tells them they have to adjust to their lot in life.

ETA: corrected "on" to be "in".
 
Last edited:
It's ironic that the BPS approach markets itself as being holistic and deep. In reality it's superficial and has a very narrow focus on the same few ideas that are applied to everything. An example is how the solution it proposes is nearly always CBT.

In the case of ME the BPS approach even intentionally ignores biology. For example the PEM literature is ignored because it doesn't fit into the narrow scope of the CBT focused BPS approach.
 
strategist said:
In the case of ME the BPS approach even intentionally ignores biology. For example the PEM literature is ignored because it doesn't fit into the narrow scope of the CBT focused BPS approach.
Click to expand...

They are not that hot on the Social component either other than their unevidenced claims of ‘secondary gains’ such as claiming benefits and supposedly harmful medical attention in the form of over using diagnostic assessments. Missing completely that for example with ME, we are seriously failed by the insurance and benefit systems and almost universally experiencing dramatic declines in income, and that misdiagnosis may be in the region of 40% for both false positives and false negatives, and the unevaluated but commonly reported psychological harm resulting from negative dismissive attitudes of medical professionals.
 
strategist said:
It's ironic that the BPS approach markets itself as being holistic and deep. In reality it's superficial and has a very narrow focus on the same few ideas that are applied to everything. An example is how the solution it proposes is nearly always CBT.

In the case of ME the BPS approach even intentionally ignores biology. For example the PEM literature is ignored because it doesn't fit into the narrow scope of the CBT focused BPS approach.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. The fact that Fukuda criteria were used that does not include PEM, means yet again, the study subjects, either did or did not have PEM. A heterogeneous group.
 
Further to fatigue and distress, are the confounding variables I listed in a post just back a few, ever accounted for? Probably not. But they are important factors. It seems like the BPS Movement believes people should be happy whatever their situation. Do these counselors ever suggest to someone they might have a better life doing something concrete about their bad situations? That their problem is not faulty beliefs. That their job, relationship, finances, or lack thereof, etc., is actually a problem? Do they ever do studies on this?

Providing sensible advice for dreadful problems, and suggestions for how to rectify them other than going for a walk? How about assisting the disabled in obtaining financial assistance the client has paid into? I know, an anathema to these workers.

I realize screening out all confounding variables may be or is impossible. How does one measure if a potential subject should be eliminated because of a confounding variable? On the other hand, if you could do this, who would be left to study?
 
Esther12 said:
I feel as if I'd struggle to watch through another of these things. I'm so bored of this.
Click to expand...
Lucky you. I just get angrier at them with each new 'study' or repeated fraudulent claim they make.

"I would say the exercise clearly is not damaging to people."
Click to expand...
Noted for future legal actions.

Peter Trewhitt said:
by the rule of a third
Click to expand...
The 'rule of thirds' is one of the dumbest ideas I have ever seen in any supposedly scientific field. Anybody quoting it to justify anything should be automatically disqualified from any further involvement on the basis that they are, at best, grossly incompetent.

(Don't mean you, Peter. :hug: )

strategist said:
It's ironic that the BPS approach markets itself as being holistic and deep. In reality it's superficial and has a very narrow focus on the same few ideas that are applied to everything. An example is how the solution it proposes is nearly always CBT.
Click to expand...
A hammer in search of nails.

strategist said:
In the case of ME the BPS approach even intentionally ignores biology. For example the PEM literature is ignored because it doesn't fit into the narrow scope of the CBT focused BPS approach.
Click to expand...
Which looks awfully like fraud to me.
 
Adam pwme said:
“If you can't do a 10 minute walk every day, do a five minute walk every day. But after you've done the five minute walk every day, you can increase it to 10 minutes, and then you can increase it the following week to 15 minutes.”
Click to expand...

"not being able to" is not the problem, at least for me. It's the symptom exacerbation that occurs and it isn't improved with training.

If we could increase activities this easily we wouldn't need any treatment because we could return to a normal life just by doing more. ;)

Somehow Chalder has managed the astonishing feat of completely misunderstanding patients for decades. How is this even possible?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom