So... All the things ME robs us of, her company can give us back through
That is the most "jolly hockey sticks" way of describing CBT+GET I have ever heard.
This and the whole "NICEly" branding is the most patronising, paternalistic "we know best" approach possible.
I would be beyond incensed at this, but it is becoming clear that in the world of ME plus ça change, plus la meme chose no matter what we do.
God, this is frustrating. None so deaf as those who will not hear.


the sad thing is... what a life she has, now if only they'd step back and help us to be able to get some medical care and research breakthroughs ie actual treatment then I think there are a load of us who'd just go off and do any of these without any of the rest. The fact we survive and are just kind and generous about others still being able to enjoy that also shows we don't have any particular mental issues.
The idea anyone needs the 'rehab' or 'behavioural' that they don't seem to want to admit is all they can offer therefore they stretch their brain imagining must be the issue just shows their attitude to listening to or knowing a single patient they've apparently had. Which is terribly psychologically harmful, but hey we've been tough through that too even though it should never happen to anyone and noone should have their truth rewritten.
by now they must be able to find a new gravy train to make money from and give us a tiny fighting chance of having these tiny things in life after all this time, they do realise that you can't cure an actual physical illness with behaviour
None of this is mental health strategy. Together or apart. It's neither mental health nor a strategy. This is leisure. Time off. Recreation.
And the more you look at mental health care and research in recent decades, the more the pattern becomes obvious: mental health has been redefined strictly as leisure, as therapeutic recreation in the right, optimized, amount. Which has enormous implications for all of society, for our obsession with work, for punitive social safety nets, for economic policies that force a huge % into poverty just so they don't have a choice but to do the worst jobs out there, and so on.
Recently I saw some survey about what MDs do for their mental health, and without much surprise it was literally all recreational. The only part that isn't necessarily strictly recreation was exercise, but as we've seen over the years, it's a distinction without a difference, as the entire field seems to be obsessed with finding the perfect exercise, one that people will enjoy and stick to. But they don't even take human nature into account, they seem to believe that if people find "the one" exercise that they enjoy, even if it's dancing, then they can stick to it 2-3 times per week for the rest of their lives. Which is not how humans behave at all. Most people crave some level of diversity, of variation, do not enjoy doing the same things over and over again. And certainly not if they feel they have no choice, if they're told "do this or you will feel bad". Tastes and preferences also change with time, as do the people we spend this time with.
If any of this were actually believed, and not some deeply flawed ideology to get people to work as much as possible by offsetting its drudgery with the right amount of therapeutic recreation, it would lead to loud calls for major shifts in how we expect people to live, how much we expect them to work, and especially the obvious conflict between the fact that leisure time has become fully equated with mental health, in societies that do everything to reduce leisure time, to make it as costly and punitive as possible. But of course the mental health experts demand no such thing. They advise no such thing. They don't even mention it. People are supposed to work as much as possible, be bound by punitive economic and social systems while at the same time dutifully find the optimized amount of therapeutic recreation that they then need to stick to like it's another job. It's completely perverse and self-defeating.
And there's some really twisted bit in the quote above, the idea that the "psychological benefits will be compounded". That doesn't even make sense, it's not how humans think or behave, and that it's coming from the profession supposedly dealing with psychology is pure insanity. They have no idea what they're doing over there.
nope and I think they know it when the rest of the spiel, with many bullet points of justification is also based on the same blah.
which makes it big psychology because they are not at all properly assessing what people have matching and checking it works.
the fact this is a generic course seen as ‘generally something good for all’ is about the attitude now. And don’t bother whether it is mental health or physical even diagnosing properly - because apparently it will do
I think that the problem is bigger than this individual course but is exampled by this is almost the exact blueprint showing the issue with the whole service.
The person running this course isn't responsible for it someone with an energy-limiting condition is harmed by having been sent on it. But as soon as a group like BACME put it in a conference then all those who are responsible for referring people onto things
should be culpable. So Julia Sands maybe not responsible but Jess Sands (Bavinton) seems to be repeating history here if she is trying to sell as a good idea something that she is conflicted with and would have a harmful component to many pwme.
I suspect the blag on her part is playing the 'mental health' card, but on that basis it is like someone being so non-diligent advising those with diabetes that instead of working out what might be nice
and safe for their birthday, they just give them the business card for their family bakery.
It shouldn't just be used as a get out of jail free card to use social prescription type things to shove into 'treatments' but with people who don't have a professional certificate or license they can lose for causing harm for certain conditions.
A focus on social prescription or add-on kind of things rather than beginning with what the problem is - properly. Although in this case I suspect BACME
still think that it's behavioural and a bit of cognitive or mental is great - certainly on some sort of sliding scale within their ranks. I think part of this is people who have a menu they don't want to expand, and 'norms' and orthodoxies meaning that ways of measuring things aren't improving.
That there are certain areas now that neither the nhs nor private do - not properly. And I can’t tell if the blag from the ‘professions’ - and to be clear the way they now habitually act they are not anymore hence the outsource to local groups with old men leading walks - started first where they gave up their pride and dignity and became charlatans (selling treatments harder than measuring which ones work for whom) or if those dumping people in/onto them came first.
I suspect it started with people 'reframing' the measures like sarah and gladwell , stuff like Chalder destroying psychology and mental health with a push to ‘transdiagnostics’ ie making it a useless non area thinking what a wheeze to change the measures and sell how undeserving those whose lives would be toileted by their actions was.
EDITED for length