Bodily distress syndrome: Concerns about scientific credibility in research and implementation, 2018, O'Leary

Saw this linked to on Facebook.

Full paper available at https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/23f4ba_ae3ffbf6ff614c669f1e6ad9420a2dc9.pdf

I'm puzzled about where this was actually published. In the document linked to above it says

On what appears to be the website of the Journal of Biological Physics and Chemistry the listed contents of that edition of their Journal only goes up to page 60, http://www.amsi.ge/jbpc/11818/jbpc11818.html

I'm probably not understanding something but currently I remain confused.

 

They carry on the page numbers with their next issue, eg this from the year before: http://www.amsi.ge/jbpc/21717/jbpc21717.html

 

Oh, OK, thanks for the explanation.

 

I like this bit:

 

And..

 

In the conclusion:

Nice to see the PACE trial used as an established example of poor science in the field of psychosomatic medicine.

 

I think I just fell in love a little bit...

I endeavor in my work to bring this shadowy area of medicine into public view. As an ethicist, I argue that women's health is routinely threatened by the principle in medical training that symptoms with mental causes predominantly affect women. I challenge our understanding of patient autonomy, informed consent, and doctor-patient truthfulness in cases where diagnosis of mental causes is made or considered. I suggest that medicine is sorely in need of “diagnostic ethics”, discourse that can articulate parameters for ethical management of diagnostic uncertainty.
...
As a speaker and advisor, I work for practical improvements in policy related to diagnostic uncertainty. In this capacity I have spoken to or advised organizations concerned with women's health, chronic Lyme disease, rare disorders, myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome, Ehlers-Danlos syndrome, periodic paralysis and others.

From O'Leary's website: https://www.dianeoleary.com

 

"The scientific success of any hypothesis depends upon
clarity about the question the hypothesis is proposed to
answer. Similarly, the scientific success of any
conceptual construct depends upon clarity about the
purpose the construct is intended to serve, and proof that
the construct does successfully accomplish that goal. On
this very rudimentary scientific level, the construct of
bodily distress syndrome is unsupported."

"
ME/CFS is an important cautionary tale. Regardless
of which side we might favour in the ME/CFS debate, the
very existence of the debate establishes that BDS carries
significant medical risk."

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1070332373957398534