Covid-19 - Psychological research and treatment

It would be interesting to know Turner-Stokes means by that "some patients".

Does it mean some of the overall patients she sees, and those are the patients she diagnoses as having MUS?

Or does she mean some of the MUS patients? In which case how does she interpret the remainder of the MUS patients?

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1286267102471610368

 

I'm really glad so.much of this is being aired on social media.

If nothing else it will give some of those suffering post covid some warning if how these "professionals" really view them & may be that will be enough to ensure more patients manage to avoid their clutches.

It must seem surreal to the likes of Garner to see this kind of thing. Back in the 80s and 90s we knew it went on but it went on behind closed doors. If you tried to discuss it with people they thought you were paranoid, a conspiracy theorist, a bit delusional and therefore it reinforced the idea you were in denial about your mental health.

I hope someone somewhere is saving this stuff.

 

From the above document

Just shows how utterly ignorant she is about the experience of having a not-yet-proved-organic disease. People dont generally consider people with ME brave, despite the reality of them being so, precisely because of the shite that people like you peddle! What kind of fantsy land are you living in woman? where you think anyone with MUS gets 'admiration from peers'?!!!
Err.... stigma? HELLO?

Nice

 

That seems an unwise piece of advice if they are hoping to cure the patient. Other family members get old. They may even come to require care.

People remember.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1286585041494171648


eta:
https://twitter.com/user/status/1286591506753769474

 

Some local coronavirus outbreaks could be 'mass hysteria', Joint Biosecurity Centre warns

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...tbreaks-could-mass-hysteriajoint-biosecurity/

And round and round the merry-go-round goes.

 

Given that whether an outbreak is in progress is decided upon on the basis of positive test results in an area I fail to see how this could in any way be the case.

Flagrant distortion of reality.

Otherwise known as a barefaced lie.

 

Oh for goodness sake. these will be the ones that

"up to 30% tested negative, proving that it was unhelpful beliefs causing their symptoms"
'err.... cough.... but the test is only about 70% reliable'..........
'stop with your activism & harassment, we are being forced to leave the field!'

 

Is Wessely involved in this centre by any chance? It's really poor taste to talk about mass hysteria during a poorly controlled pandemic.

 

Couldn't see details on it's membership.

This document on the 'Joint Biosecurity Centre' cites a few of his papers: https://assets.publishing.service.g...847/S0418_Note_on_JBC_and_potential_flows.pdf

 

Reference 13 is a paper by Wessely.

How not to handle a pandemic: tell people they are hysterical unless they really have covid 19. People should wait to tighten social distancing, seek testing and medical help until they're really sure they're not hysterical. Because making sure the hysterics aren't accidentally taken seriously is so much more important than early detection of real cases. Diagnostic tests are also 100% reliable and there's no risk in declaring anyone's covid-like symptoms with a negative test to be psychogenic (sarcasm).

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1287381634967375873

 

Wasn't SW ' s input in " quarantine fatigue", from situations which in no way represented a pandemic, part of the no need for lockdown narrative ?

Is such advice being sought , or simply being given ?

 

I better look at it. Like Esther Crawley, Lynne Turner Stokes was a trainee of mine. In fact her mother, who was President of the Royal College of Physicians for a time was a trainee of my father's!

 

The third person on the video seemed nice and sensible.
I have not looked at RMM, as I doubt I would see anything new.
What struck me about Lynne Turner Stokes presentation on the video and slideshow was the complete absence of any evidence combined with didactic advice on the right thing to do. Lynne is a highly intelligent woman but intelligence does not seem to be a bar to enthusiasm-based medicine. She makes some valid points about the confused terminology but still appears to go along with the establishment psychological view. She seems to think you can identify psychological causes in individual patients. She should know that there is no way you can do that.