Chandelier
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Very cool, thank you, @Grigor !I wrote the following as a reply to her post on LinkedIn:
Very cool, thank you, @Grigor !I wrote the following as a reply to her post on LinkedIn:
This is genuinely a crisis moment for medicine, and they are the crisis. Might even be the worst crisis they've ever faced, and they are completely blind to it. All of this has been unfolding in public for the last 6 years, it's easy to find out that this model was exactly what almost everyone got offered, or even forced to undergo, from day one, because it had been the dominant model for decades, despite never showing any evidence of efficacy. All entirely with the exact same premise, even wording. Everything is staked on the idea that, yes, most people seem to recover naturally, but for some people the symptoms remain, and for some of those people, it might be that healing magic could be the explanation.An article from a Swiss news site that tries its hardest to take both sides into consideration, biomedical research and the neuroplasticity folks.
However, is both-sidesism the right approach?
Just have a look at the wild potpurri of subheadings in this article.
It's hard to walk away from this article without being confused.
I'd argue, they should give other promising treatments such as Homeopathy, Chanting and Oil Drilling the same space.
A rare honest admission. Thousands of studies have been done over the last century, and they all have one intent: to prove that they are right. Which is not science, is excessively biased, and makes up for a giant crisis of credibility when it is all happening while it's been known for years that most recover anyway, sometimes quickly, fewer over months, fewer still over years. This is going to lead to millions of mad howls about how they have been lying to everyone for decades, and this time it will be true.A study intended to prove the effect is planned.
An interview from the same journalist with pro brain-retraining neuroimmunologist Lara Diem, co-author of these papers:I wrote the following as a reply to her post on LinkedIn:
Long Covid: Neurologist Lara Diem advocates personalised treatment rather than polarisation.
Lara Diem has treated 2,000 patients to date. She explains why personalised therapy is essential.
You are talking about brain training. How successful is it?
I see great progress in some of the patients.
If someone responds to it, they can significantly improve their performance and control of symptoms.
...
What determines who responds to it?
You have to be careful about how resilient a patient is.
The setbacks after exertion, called post-exertional malaise, are a major risk in Long Covid.
That is why I do not use it with patients who are already bedridden.
“Reprogramming” the brain’s software — that’s how I explain it to patients — costs energy.
And how must the patient be prepared for it?
It is important that the patient supports the therapy and is willing to engage with it.
If they immediately say they have read it doesn’t work, such a therapy would be counterproductive.
It is known that patients can develop side effects when they reject a therapy.
That is the nocebo effect: negative effects due to pessimistic expectations.
But if I don’t trivialize anything for those affected and explain everything well, it is usually well received.
What exactly do you explain?
That there are demonstrable physical changes. And that stress factors have influenced the illness so that the body now classifies all stimuli as alarm signals.
...
You mentioned inflammation in the brain. Isn’t that a clearly pathological process?
These explanatory approaches are not mutually exclusive.
Stress does not only affect the psyche; it also influences the immune, hormonal, and nervous systems and can thereby amplify physical complaints.
But why was the pandemic the starting point for so many cases of post-viral fatigue?
The SARS‑CoV‑2 virus triggers the immune system extremely.
And some people — women in general because of the hormone estrogen — have a higher risk that the immune system overshoots.
If, because of the symptoms, one can no longer manage work and household tasks, an extreme stress develops in one group of affected people that keeps this system running.
In a second group, the stress was already chronic — and stress activates the immune system.
Covid then acts like a fuse that makes the system overshoot.
And if it is an autoimmune disease? Then brain training won’t help.
You have to be careful what is labeled an autoimmune disease.
In one study we saw that Long Covid patients even formed rheumatic antibodies, which, however, disappeared again over time.
So Long Covid is not, in your understanding, a true autoimmune disease?
It is certainly a neuroimmunological disease with overactivation of the immune system.
However, Long Covid is currently not considered a classic autoimmune disease.
It is probably a complex clinical picture with several biological mechanisms.
But can these regress?
In principle, yes.
The question is: what continues to trigger the immune system?
In any case, I have patients who have recovered significantly or become symptom-free.
What if the disease is already chronic?
Then it becomes difficult.
Then this false software installs itself in the brain like in chronic pain.
This dysregulation is hard to reverse.
The earlier it is treated, the greater the chance of counteracting such chronification.
With chronic pain patients you still try it — and that is exactly what neuroplasticity promises.
Yes, you try.
But a brain cannot be updated as easily as a computer.
The human brain is so complex! Unfortunately, the changes occur on different levels — and we only see the tip of the iceberg.
Especially with those patients who are bedridden, we are up against a wall.
...
Some affected people criticize that Long Covid clinics use methods that have not yet been sufficiently researched.
The evidence for neuroplastic approaches is moderate, but it is growing.
Some studies show improvements in fatigue and function, while there are safety concerns especially for patients with severe illness.
The patient must be able to manage their energy well in order to try the methods.
Avoiding overexertion remains the be‑all and end‑all.
Patient organizations write that such brain trainings have not worked in the past.
In my clinic there are patients who have benefited from such approaches, and others for whom this was not the case.
The crucial question is therefore not whether such approaches work in principle or not, but for which patient groups they can be helpful and safe.
Off‑label drug therapies also have limited evidence.
For example, attempts with antihistamines or naltrexone do not work for everyone.
There is a risk that the disease could worsen because of it.
You cannot completely eliminate post-exertional malaise from one’s life.
Even a change in the weather can trigger a deterioration.
But if you withdraw from everything, the body will certainly be overwhelmed at the next confrontation.
We try cautiously to improve the worst symptoms.
Where is the leeway?
For a bedridden patient, for example, it can be breathing exercises that calm the vagus nerve.
Many patients do that. Some doctors recommend more than that.
You must not push; the risks are too high. When we set up the clinic at Inselspital in Bern in September 2020, we did not know this yet.
But because we knew that pushing multiple sclerosis patients with chronic fatigue to more movement helps them enormously, we recommended exercise training.
We had to learn that this does not help in Long Covid.
Are there exercises without risk?
For example the stop exercise: when a symptom appears, close your eyes, imagine a stop sign, breathe deeply in and out and tell yourself “Stop, no danger.”
For patients who come with sunglasses and headphones, I advise gradually giving these up in stable phases.
It is important to allow small improvements.
How do you handle it?
It is the art of a physician to see what is possible for a patient.
I move between websites that promise a cure and patient organizations that only issue warnings.
We should be open to new things: you can also harm a patient by withholding a therapy.
And the current polarization certainly does harm.
There are very critical reactions toward patients who say: “This helped me.”
Their God complex is showing..How do you handle it?
It is the art of a physician to see what is possible for a patient.
You fool, the patient is supposed to step on the STOP sign and raise their hands in the air like they just don't care.For example the stop exercise: when a symptom appears, close your eyes, imagine a stop sign, breathe deeply in and out and tell yourself “Stop, no danger.”
The history of science is basically a hard-earned lesson in the foolishness of doing things this way. Many of the main methods of medical science work explicitly to guard against this, lessons learned in so much blood. Medicine used to push back against it, now it's invested all its money in and runs the board. All of this literally stems from Freud's worst ideas, they are very old things.We should be open to new things: you can also harm a patient by withholding a therapy.
And the current polarization certainly does harm.
There are very critical reactions toward patients who say: “This helped me.”
My understanding is that the nervous system is activated, which puts you under physiological stress, and this is measured by HRV.Can I ask a stupid question because I’m foggy.
You know medical biology and science, do they indicate that the nervous system is activated or stressed or inflamed? I know everyone in brainytrainy says the you get stuck in a feedback loop or whatever but either there is a biological phenomenon that’s been observed (IDK high pulse, fast breathing etc) or they're just making it up.
Is it just made up or can it be proven?
Yeah that’s what I thought.My understanding is that the nervous system is activated, which puts you under physiological stress, and this is measured by HRV.
But that's a more biological explanation; mind-body says you are stuck in fight/flight. The smoke detector is going off, but there is no fire. I am not sure the there is any more biological explanation that that? So...nothing to prove? It's an internal feeling of not being safe and brain training starts with changing your relationship to pain/symptoms and giving yourself messages that you are safe and nothing structural is wrong, it's all a false signal.
Which would suggest there is nothing measurable?
I have never seen any explanation than it's people having symptoms that can be conceived of as being an overactive sympathetic nervous system. It's completely circular, and I have never seen anyone bother before that. And quite similar to the failed forensics science, where if a hair sample seems to roughly not be too different from another, then it can be claimed to be a match. Even though most hair are roughly similar.Can I ask a stupid question because I’m foggy.
You know medical biology and science, do they indicate that the nervous system is activated or stressed or inflamed? I know everyone in brainytrainy says the you get stuck in a feedback loop or whatever but either there is a biological phenomenon that’s been observed (IDK high pulse, fast breathing etc) or they're just making it up.
Is it just made up or can it be proven?
Over on the wired article it’s stated as fact and I just wondered -I have never seen any explanation than it's people having symptoms that can be conceived of as being an overactive sympathetic nervous system. It's completely circular, and I have never seen anyone bother before that. And quite similar to the failed forensics science, where if a hair sample seems to roughly not be too different from another, then it can be claimed to be a match. Even though most hair are roughly similar.
It's like a model that conceives rain as angels weeping. Angels are in heaven, up in the sky, obviously. If they weep, it would fall down as if appearing from the sky. You look at water coming down from the sky, and without a better explanation, the model fits. Why would need a better model when it fits all observations? It doesn't go any deeper than this, because clearly no one cares about this being a real explanation.
We’ve seen so many studies where they claim that the goal was to prove that the intervention works, not to test if it works. It’s maddening.The remarkable thing about these people is that even when they do find something biological, like a different response to buspirone, they have no idea what to do about it because they only ever did the experiment to confirm what they already believed - which was probably wrong too.