BPS attempts at psychologizing Long Covid

Mr. Shuell's question implies that science and scientists should be oriented towards finding the truth of phenomena. Of course this will sound utterly incoherent to our man. How rude!

 

Upcoming seminar this week at a Norwegian university with among other Henrik Vogt in the panel.

Can you imagine yourself healthy?
ME, Fibromyalgia, late injuries after Covid 19: What do the brain, thoughts and moods mean for the body's health? Can cognitive therapy help or is it just nonsense? And why are the fronts so steep between those who believe in the psyche and those who believe in the body?

More info
google translation

 

Is "imagine" a good translation of "tenke"? There may be many ways one could imagine oneself healthy...but that is clearly not what is meant.

 

Good point! I just used the google translation, but "think" would be a more accurate word here.

 

I hesitate to comment because really there is so much we don't know about how the mind works but I'd like to say that this:

is a straw man question? I mean it's all body as the mind arises out of somewhere and it's not phlogiston (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory) or the ether. So pinning one against the other is wrong thinking. I think he needs this pointed out whenever he uses this (which is a lot).

Also, the theory that you can talk yourself well has no evidence. People saying nice things on questionnaires doesn't count as evidence. Again, there is a lot to say as to why this is.
For an example there is the paper in this thread:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/cogni...in-the-uk-2020-adamson-wessely-chalder.16242/

As pointed out by K Garaghty in a twitter thread, the data they present is that 90% of the people who did not drop out were satisfied with treatment!

That's lovely but their data also say that 28% were no better or worse at the end of treatment. Which shows two things. People asked to evaluate something are generally charitable. And about 10% of people tell it like it is (which actually seems about right just observationally and generally in the world).

Also, again, there is much that is not known about the mind. And there is no hard evidence that anyone can think themselves well. None at all.

 

The debate panel has been updated.

The original participants were:

• Henrik Vogt - GP and researcher at Center for medical ethics, Oslo University
• Hege Johannessen - The Norwegian ME Association, Nordland County
• Charlotte Gjerstein - recovered ME patient

The panel has been expanded with two more participants:

• Anna Ulrika Larsson - psychiatrist, Hospital in Nordland
• Karl Johan Tronstad - professor at Institute for biomedicine, University in Bergen

Prof. Tronstad is part of Fluge and Mella's research team.

 

Here is info on Trude Gjernes who introduces the discussion:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Trude_Gjernes2

And Anki Gerhardsen is a journalist (sorry can't remember if this has been mentioned):

(Also can't figure out how to translate):

https://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anki_Gerhardsen

As far as any debate goes it seems to me that the deck is stacked in favour of thinking yourself well. And I'm going to guess that there will be no stringent adherence to any sort of real evidence since it also seems clear that the policy people want this thinking yourself well to be the cheap solution.

So I do believe I can 'think' into the future and 'imagine' the resulting write up of glowing report that this thinking stuff works (with maybe a few weak caveats for 'balance').

 

How this ridiculous Goop-level nonsense is not laughed out of every room that doesn't reek of essential oils is beyond me. Medical authorities who participate in this charade are beclowning themselves completely.

Something to warn the post-COVID community, if anyone is involved in of those communities. They should pay attention to this, it's definitely coming their way in some countries and medical authorities have to account for enabling this absurdity.

 

Ugh. Even if it's to provide balance it's not a good idea. Quacks should never be enabled, this is how they gain ground. This has been known for a long time. Whether it's flat-earth or QAnon, taking quacks seriously only strengthens them and no one who is interested in that debate will care about what's true, they just want to feel that it's true.

 

I do see your point, and think it's a difficult dilemma.

But it's already gone too far here. Vogt has been enabled and has gained ground. He's friends with leading media doctors and his organisation has a close collaboration with the GP-department of the Norwegian Medical Association. It's obvious he makes sense to them.

Nobody listens when mere patients are debating against him. But perhaps more people will realise there might be more to this ME debate when a professor stands up for the patient group and talks about facts and biomedical research. I believe it's helpful to show that this is a debate between professionals, not between professionals and patients. Even if it comes with a price.

 

Last week the Norwegian newspaper Dagsavisen had an interview with journalist Jørgen Jelstad about ME. The article also mentioned the possibility of an increase of ME patients due to the pandemic. The interview was shared in the thread: Possibility of ME or PVFS after COVID-19, Long Covid here

Jörgen Malmquist, a Swedish retired MD who has just published a BPS-book about ME (discussed here) has written an opinion piece objecting to the article.

Skremselspropaganda om ME i Dagsavisen
google translation: Intimidation propaganda about ME in Dagsavisen

The mass media has a strong influential (suggestive) effect, and incorrect information and gloomy predictions can arouse anxious thoughts in those who become ill.

"Will this happen to me?"

This natural worry can actually help maintain symptoms such as fatigue, and that it becomes as one fears.

Both worry and symptoms can be transmitted through "social infection" to colleagues, friends, family members and others, by sharing worry and fear for symptoms.

Thus, increasing numbers of people may begin to have the same experience of feeling sick, exhausted or the like. In this way, the media contribute to creating a social epidemic.

 

I was waiting for that argument from BPSers of the mass media being suggestive. Corona deniers here already are using it (people die or get ill bc of anxiety).

That's why I'm wondering if it really is helpful when celebrities, e.g. Alyssa Milano, are being so "visual" about it. It's good they speak up and use their platform but I don't like instagramming an illness lying fashionalbly in expensive bed sheets & designer pajamas.

 

This seems a dangerous philosophy. Don't give the hoi polloi information. It is not for them to worry their little heads. Leave it to the High Priests to determine what is good for them.

It can make life so difficult when people don't like being lied to.

Where this would leave "informed consent" is anyone's guess.

 

It reminds me of the medieval beliefs in bad spirits, demons and witches... and the persecution which resulted.

It strikes me both resemble each other because both result from the same human tendency to stereotype other people and imagine them to be something from the observers imagination without due regard for the inestimable mystery of reality.

In BPS the "spirit" has been replaced with social communication and demons with hysteria.

BPS has the same characteristics as a cult, based on a belief system and driven by the benefits of academic salaries and the sense of status of having an academic "position", for those who believe in such vanities, much like the historic priesthood and many cultish groups since then.

Both suffer from the comparable intellectual flaws resulting from using a fictional belief system, modelled in the imagination, to try to account for real phenomena and coming out with neurotic gobbeldygook as a result. Like blaming cats for the black death because they are witches familiars etc... equivalent to dont let people believe they are ill or they will catch BPS neurosis.

Very nutsy nonsense but on the other hand perhaps in clashing with COVID some BPS proponents have overstretched themselves and provided us with an opportunity to expose this idiocy for what it is.

Perhaps we ought not waste it.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/ca/blog/open-gently/202009/is-chronic-fatigue-in-your-head

Lots of nonsense here, I don't know where to start.

(Note that the mentioned Schubiner article (also on PsychToday) acts as if Noakes' "central governor of homeostasis" has actually been demonstrated empirically, and doesn't understand that Noakes' theories are based on activity cessation and motivation, rather than fatigue itself)

 

This argument falls extremely flat considering how consistently the long Covid community are saying they are being ignored and that their situation is downplayed. Especially given the highly dismissive attitude from the medical community and the gaslighting the patients are experiencing. This argument literally defies linear time, just like all the absurd claims of people adopting the CFS label even though most of us have never heard about it until years after being sick.

It takes serious talent to be this wrong.

 

They are also implying that all the gloom about (acute) covid is causing (long) covid.

 

Predictably, under yesterday's JAMA article:

"Status". "Secondary gain". WTF is this guy smoking?

 

Yeah.

"DOOM AND GLOOM PEOPLE ARE AFRAID AND THAT'S MAKING THEM 'SICK'"

Also: "why won't people wear masks? why are people congregating at pubs? don't they see there's a pandemic under way? why are people not social distancing? WHY ARE PEOPLE GOING SHOPPING? WHY AREN'T THEY TAKING THIS SERIOUSLY?!"

Very serious people. Cognitive dissonance is good. Up is red. Down is A#.

 

Riiight. What a load of old.......

When I eventually sought help for my symptoms, like an idiot I was relieved to be told I had ME.

I only knew what I had read about it in newspapers. From being scared there was actually something seriously wrong with me I was kind of pleased to think it was just something fairly trivial.

Just look where that got me.