BPS attempts at psychologizing Long Covid

I think the motivation for expressing this kind of perspective is not primarily scientific integrity. I consider this kind of approach to "academia" is adopted by people who understand the scientific method well enough to dodge around it but they are not interested in applying it due to their motivation. (Edited to restructure this sentence.)

What I have noticed about mercenary psychologists is they deliberately use well recognised and documented forms of fallacious thinking and instead of countering it as a scientist or educator would do they attempt to utilise it as a means to influence others by exploiting cognitive weaknesses.

Because they cant do what they want to do if they do it right, as what they want to do is confound and confuse people into believing stigmatising stereotypes so the decision makers believe their public want them to adopt hostile, small minded attitudes towards forms of illness which represent a liability for health insurers.

This is a fake opinion and like most fake news there is an agenda behind it. This is about serving other paymasters by acting as propagandists.

Just saying, dont expect it to make sense and dont be diverted by trolling.

 

Let me know if anyone wants the whole article google translated and sent as a private message.

 

I'd say that's pretty much the definition.

 

I'm always interested in what is getting published.

 

All of this reminds me of previous post by @Jonathan Edwards
"evangelical hypocrisy"
https://www.s4me.info/threads/paul-...me-cfs-bmj-articles.15629/page-33#post-322586

Makes you wonder how university academics can get away with publicising these views - surely it damages the reputation of the University ---- maybe the University doesn't care as long as it brings in "research" funding!

 

I remember the days when little ol naive me was under the impression that universities were all about learning, and if necessary, teaching.

Now it seems they are all about money, and seemingly producing research to say whatever they are paid to.

Maybe they always were.

Otherwise I would agree, that the behaviour of some individuals, against science as well as populations, should attract some form of sanction - maybe they have, maybe he just didn't care about having his library access revoked for a month?

 

My bad. I actually meant the creature from the Joan Crawford horror flick Trog:
https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/2TwAAOSw~oFXM-SV/s-l300.jpg

 

Evidence based medicine people who feel anecdotal evidence is just as good as a proper trial or that you don't need to do a trial of a parachute makes me want to sit them in front of a TV and watch Mythbusters for a week.

A TV show which looked at popular sayings to see if they were correct found that a lot of what seemed obvious was wrong. They even made a lead balloon float!

When the PACE trial came out their results for the 6 minute walking test was based on a single walk yet I had just seen a Mythbusters episode where they had done 10 repeats of a walking test because they felt they needed at least that many to get a meaningful result.

 

Ah now. Be fair.

It's not like any old anecdotal evidence will do.

Patient surveys by multiple national charities but not saying what they want to hear? Nope - you know what those anti science, militants are like!

Patients filling in forms they've more or less been coached in who are possibly desperate they will continue to receive some kind of ongoing support - that's your high quality evidence right there!

Edit - of course, not to forget slightly hysterical professors with sugar allergies. They rank very highly of course and much like the PACE participants who are well enough to be classed as recovered while.simultaneously ill enough to be enrolled in the PACE trial, they are at the same time terribly afflicted while apparently well enough to go off travelling and getting themselves infected with dengue fever.

 

I wish I was exaggerating but I am not. An "Overcoming MS" leaflet said that evidenced based medicine means using all kinds of evidence including observations, anecdotes and experience as well as clinical research. Though patient experience not so much!

 

Anecdotes = evidence but not when their patient anecdotes.

Yep, that'll explain why Gerada and Garner were given BBC air time, to air their anecdotes as patients because they're doctors......

Does anyone know if there is actually an end to this rabbit hole or does it go on forever?

 

Nothing, apart from possibly itself, goes on forever - but in my case there is probably a large and hungry ferret at the other end of this particular rabbit hole.

 

A reply by another psychiatry resident, Yochai Re'em.
WSJ: The Science Behind 'Long Covid' and the Desire to Wish It Away

It's paywalled, but the author has provided a summary on Twitter:

 

That might be a bit ad hominem, if indeed these were hominids.

 

He looks to be have as many BPS veins as the blue in a Stilton cheese. The difference from the other guy may be that he has learnt that patients are not quite so dumb as to be told they are imagining everything. He finds it works better to say they may only be imaging some of it - classic BPS.

It is amusing to see these people struggling with their own lack of comprehension. The pity is that the average reader will come away with 'uh-oh, it's all in the mind like Yuppie flu then'.

 

Wow, I don't get that reading from it at all. Maybe you have better nose for Stilton than I do. Yes, he allows in one sentence that some unconscious feelings can result in physical symptoms, but overall it's an argument for let's listen to patients and not default to psychological explanations--a reversal of the other one.

"So why is the default approach doubting patients instead of believing them?"

 

The hallmark of pseudoscience is the use of persuasive reasoning over the use of scientific evidence and sound reasoning. This has been dubbed psychobabble (eta when it occurs in psychology or psychiatry). In this instance it is politics in the medical sphere rather than science. You win if you convince enough people, damn the facts or reason. You win twice if you convince enough people your claim is scientific.

 

Confirmation, or verificationism, was very big in nineteenth century science. Most areas of science had abandoned it by 1960 or so.

 

They used a modified protocol that had a known bias. This bias shows up if you check by using multiple tests. Funny they didn't do that.