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

and no matter what the actual results. if the primary outcome fails, the university won't mention it in the press release and will claim it is a success anyway.

 

@Peter Trewhitt You are right. White & Chalder set up the company One Health explicitly to promote BPS to government and the NHS. They named PACE to reflect their "pull yourself together" ideology. FINE, SMILE, FITNET are from the same mould. CODES not so much, so no wonder Chalder couldn't remember...

 

Is there any account of what this company actually tried to do and did?

Only found a source saying the company's business activity was "Human health and social work activities" and existed from 2002-2010 (https://www.companieslondon.com/uk/04364122/one-health).

 

@MSEsperanza
One Health articles were removed by Companies House as usual for defunct companies. The Objects (3 - 3.3.) state that they were set up to push the BPS model. They did not divulge this to PACE recruits (nor any other CoI), breaching Helsinki before they even started. They did not feel any need to mention One Health in the Lancet, when they did declare some CoI. Perhaps they thought dissolving it in 2010 meant it hadn't been a CoI?

As well as PACE, they held a conference which was published. I don't know of other outputs.

 

PDF's can be uploaded in the same way as other files but tend to hit the file size limit. What is the limit you ask? It was 1mb, and I thought it was raised, but I can't find confirmation of that anywhere, so I'll have to tag @Adrian so that he can confirm what it is.

 

Thanks. I've snipped the relevant bit. The rest is boilerplate.

 

erm...surely not 'all the significant causal factors' but only the ones that fit with whatever pseudoscience they are currently promoting?

As otherwise they may note that poverty and poor work conditions etc can influence health, to the degree that they actually try and do something about them, rather than just trying to reprogramme the patient to think that poor health, no money, poor housing, and a terrible job, are things that can be fixed if they just change the way they think.

 

"Biopsychosocial" is a name, not a description. It could have been called universal CBT (which would have been more accurate). it implies that biological, psychological and social conditions all impact on disease and well being but it has never been used that way.

In the same way, "evidence based medicine" does not mean based on the treatments with the best outcomes as they never take into account any research that is not done by the same cabal.

Like much of what they do, it means one thing but the words are designed to be read as something else. Think "recovery" in the PACE trial where Peter white said that their definition of recovery may not match everyone elses' but he was quite happy for the papers to assume "getting back to work with no more health issues" recovery.

 

That's a good description of epidemiology. BPS was a poorly defined attempt to humanise biomedicine which by the 1970s was seen as sometimes inhuman. Since then it's become a flag of convenience for psychs wanting to expand their sphere of influence.

 

Should that be "potential causal factors"?

 

I'd pay to actually watch these people argue the differences between the dozens of acronyms and definitions they invented over the years.

Is this the persistent physical thingy or the bodily distress that? Or may be the stress anxiety thingamajig or the somatizing functional thingamabob?

Dozens of definitions FOR THE EXACT SAME THING. I can't get over how people take this seriously. I can somewhat make sense of most of them, the words are used incorrectly but they loosely apply, but can't begin to make sense of how dissociative means anything other than having run out of common words and having to use silly terms by sheer necessity.

 

...and actually is expanding in medical education in a couple of European countries.

From the German language wikpedia page on "Biopsychosocial medicine" :

Doctor training
"In 2011 Josef W. Egger was appointed to the first chair for Biopsychosocial Medicine in the German-speaking world at the Medical University of Graz [Austria]. Biopsychosocial medicine has become the guiding principle of this university and today also forms the basis for a much greater focus on 'speaking medicine' in the training of doctors at other medical universities and faculties (e.g. Heidelberg, Berlin, Groningen, Leiden, Bologna and many others)."
(deepl translated)

 

Maybe they have to keep changing them to stay ahead of public understanding of their jargon. I recall one of them saying that they chose the term "functional" because it sounds physical to a patient, when they really mean psychological.

 

Freud is still remembered fondly there?

 

There seems to be a lot of confusion within the medical community as to what "functional" really means (some do not believe it means psychological). Yet the baggage that the term brings suggests that it is inherently problematic.

 

The difficulty is that words do not "really" mean anything. One has to judge the manner of use.

 

there are just as many different types of psychotherapy........TC does manage to rattle a few of those off in the interview (I haven't checked to see if they are actual therapies or if she's just doing a bit of jabberwocking).