Cochrane Database Syst Review - Psychosocial interventions for conversion and dissociative disorders in adults (2020) Ganslv et al.

Next step would be admitting that no one has ever observed a "conversion" of emotions into a chronic illness, that this is a not scientific idea.

 

A psychological stressor or trauma is present in most people's lives if you consider their whole history since birth/childhood. You can always find something if you are looking for it. Why do some develop so-called conversion disorder?

 

I can feel a presence. I think it's a man, older. Maybe someone with an M, or a P. Is there a Michael or maybe a Peter? Does anyone have a relative maybe with an M in their name, anywhere in their name? Maybe someone from the distant past? No? Anyone? Bueller?

This junk is indistinguishable from psychics and mentalists. They just take super vague things that people latch on to and worm their way trying to manipulate.

This soon after CODES was published, the largest experiment of its kind on whatever "dissociative" means. Maybe people are getting tired of defending indefensible quackery? The very concepts should have been retired decades ago, an aberration in modern medicine that would be equivalent to NASA having a billion-dollar astrology department. Grow up, people, this is barbaric nonsense.

 

Wait, I got it: Magic! Someone must have cast a hex on them!
No wait that's not it how about: They displeased the gods!
Perhaps they were nasty people in a past life and have to atone in this one?

 

see
https://www.s4me.info/threads/cogni...20-goldstein-chalder.15251/page-4#post-274845

 

Trial By Error by David Tuller - No Evidence for CBT and Other "Conversion Disorder" Therapies

The new review is an update of a 2005 version. Its stated objective was “to assess the beneficial and harmful effects” of the psychosocial interventions in question, several of which were forms of CBT. The review included 17 studies published up until last year, with a total of 894 participants. The 2010 pilot study for CODES was included, although CODES itself was published too late. The Cochrane review found that the studies were generally of poor quality and produced little or no evidence of benefits from a range of psychosocial interventions.

 

Can they be more vague? I don't think so. That's exactly the same thing as all the other things other than not being an acronym, for a change. Just the latest rebranding in a long line of psychosocial, biopsychosocial, psychogenic, conversion, affective, functional, medically unexplained. They all mean the exact same damn thing and these charlatans pretend otherwise. All style no substance.

No idea how something like that passes peer review. Cochrane is such a disaster. This is an opinion presented as fact. There is no evidence whatsoever to support that other than being the arbitrary definition of this fictitious category.

Evidence-based medicine, where facts don't matter and everything is made-up. Let's just throw all the books and go with our guts! YEEEHAAA!!

 

True, they're operating within their own solipsistic bubble. but even in their own terms, the interventions didn't work.

 

In the recent interview:
https://www.s4me.info/threads/cogni...20-goldstein-chalder.15251/page-4#post-273720

TC talks briefly about the CODES trial (but couldn't recall what CODES stood for) and said that the therapy improved Quality of Life for the patients.

Undeterred by the negative results she and her team have several new projects in the pipeline.

 

bullshit. The study had three questionnaires measuring health related quality of life. They had results on one but null results on the other two. So they're claiming benefits in health-related quality of life. it's all gibberish.

 

just not as Popper knew it.

 

Totally normal to forget what the acronym of your own large trial actually means. The competence on display and attention to details are mesmerizing.

 

I wonder if the use of these acronyms reflect an underlying process that is not aimed [at] advancing understanding or knowledge but rather at developing marketable products. So many of these trials take the superficial form of experimental science, but are in reality PR and marketing exercises.

Science ideally consists of a clearly specified theory that generates concrete hypotheses that are then tested experimentally, whereas these studies seem to start from a mutable assertion that these symptom groupings are somehow psychogenic and a researcher belief that psychological/behavioural interventions (ie CBT) are wonderful, then ‘research’ is designed not to test falsifiable hypotheses, but to ideally confirm the wonderfulness of the intervention(s).

[edits]