Is it beneficial to engage with the BPS proponents?

Utsikt

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Are there any examples of it being beneficial to engage with the BPS proponents? They seem to be doing whatever they want, no matter the evidence.

So if we can’t get them tø change their minds, what are the benefits?

Maybe that the patients’s perspectives are being shared in those circles, but even that seems to be able to be twisted to serve their purpose.

Getting someone feeding support would be beneficial, but would that not involve getting non-BPS people involved instead? The same for help at home. The BPS proponents won’t help if they think it’s harmful to help us, and they won’t stop thinking it’s harmful if they won’t change their minds.

I’m wondering if our efforts might be best spent trying to keep them out of the places that have not yet been affected, and trying to establish research and care outside the BPS sphere - so as far away as possible from their clinics, e.g. in hospitals under normal departments.

Part of that might be to continue to try to limit their influence on others through arguing against them and demonstrating to third parties that they are wrong.
 
I'm wondering if our efforts might be best spent trying to keep them out of the places that have not yet been affected, and trying to establish research and care outside the BPS sphere - so as far away as possible from their clinics, e.g. in hospitals under normal departments.

Part of that might be to continue to try to limit their influence on others through arguing against them and demonstrating to third parties that they are wrong.
I think this is the only possible way forward. Their clinics seem entirely compromised to me. I don't think compromise is possible with people ideologically opposed to the foundational aspects of your illness.

I have a follow up with the local MECFS team tomorrow and I predict just being offered an online group course in fatigue management again. The standard of care BPS provide is completely unacceptable.
 
I don't think compromise is possible with people ideologically opposed to the foundational aspects of your illness.
That’s my experience so far as well. 5 out of 5 have been a net negative. The last one hasn’t caused any direct harm yet because I’ve refused to comply with their encouragement to do more, but I can’t get rid of them and I have to waste time seeing them.

And they have caused indirect harm by teaching those around me harmful things, so there is even more pressure to do more, think differently and so on.

There is just no use for them. The people would be useful without their ideology, but then we might as well try to recruit non-believers instead of converting the believers. That also avoids the risk of unintentional negative consequences.
 
That’s my experience so far as well. 5 out of 5 have been a net negative. The last one hasn’t caused any direct harm yet because I’ve refused to comply with their encouragement to do more, but I can’t get rid of them and I have to waste time seeing them.

And they have caused indirect harm by teaching those around me harmful things, so there is even more pressure to do more, think differently and so on.

There is just no use for them. The people would be useful without their ideology, but then we might as well try to recruit non-believers instead of converting the believers. That also avoids the risk of unintentional negative consequences.
I tried to make a compromise with doctors who had BPS views before I knew enough about BPS stuff and they gaslit me first into exercise and then into pushing past my baseline. Deception is baked into what they do at the ground level. Deception of patients, of doctors, of funding bodies, of themselves...
 
I had hoped that one consequence of so many clinicians around the world getting ME/CFS fromCovid would have woken up their colleagues to the failure of BPS approaches, but it seems clinicians who are very sick get treated just as badly. A few with family members affected see the harm, but I suspect many either gaslight their family member or latch onto whatever quack therapy happens to seem to help, and they end up as purveyors of quackery instead of BPS.
 
All medical personel have been educated with: "It's all between the ears". Many would like to keep it there,
A little bit of news from BPS allows them to keep it that way, Just skimread a paper at most.

Bias confirmation is way easier than changing minds that are set in stone. Would they even skimread DecodeME?
As @Trish said believers are ousted even when they become patients.
 
I think this is the only possible way forward. Their clinics seem entirely compromised to me. I don't think compromise is possible with people ideologically opposed to the foundational aspects of your illness.

I have a follow up with the local MECFS team tomorrow and I predict just being offered an online group course in fatigue management again. The standard of care BPS provide is completely unacceptable.
Agreed and with this type the fight never ends which is the fallacy those naive thinking compromises will be a good short term way forward seem to not learn the lesson in

To the point you end up thinking it’s not that those people are naive it’s just that they don’t actually agree with your side /disagree with them as much as they claim because it’s so obvious that it’s counterproductive at some point.

So there’s no compromise that will ever be struck as it will keep being sucked further to their side and no benefit from talking to them as it will be used to pretend it’s a fight. So also any third party pretending you should engage with them is by nature knowingly playing games and being dusingenuous too because unless they are offering a significant change in power dynamics to keep them in line themselves they are stitching the more vulnerable up to waste their energy and have their actions twisted.

Even if something bearable was struck as a detente then this type will deliberately then start chipping away at that , and that’s fact of this type and how they think and work and are not ‘guess’ or me thinking that - I’m so used to living in this world that I’m puzzled by the people who gaslight me that there’s ever been anything any different because there has never been a situation and I’ve witnessed thousands in different contexts where it ends any differently.

Unless you put a lid on these people and as soon as they see they are with people giving leeway and who show their hand that they ‘don’t want an argument’ then those people have shown them their weak spot and threaten arguments forevermore to keep getting more of what they want. So by then being that way they end up putting everyone else into more fights and a life of constant unreliability because they’ve said they aren’t holding that to account.

What does need to be done is keep whatever they do or say publicly and make sure they know whatever they do can be observed and is well shown up and documented so the fake narratives no longer work or apply as they appeal to bystanders to take their side or ignore. and no one breaking the seal by having secret interactions thinking they are being clever and doing a favour for those they are actually undermining due to their hubris.

A major tactical used by bps is to appeal to that hubris/you are like them (so I’m sure talking to you will be different because the problem was all those other pwme over the years ‘but you seem more grown up’) and divide and conquer. These newbies need to realise it’s like schoolboys ‘negging’ girls as it’s actually been the bps behind how badly they’ve been treated and their reputation trashed by stigma suddenly by this label (not ‘the suck people who are that sick because they’ve not tried hard enough in the right things but just waste their energy whinging about evil bacme instead’) to leave them feeling vulnerable to a pat on head from a crocodile smiling manipulator when said manipulator waltzing in and tries to give them the ego relief they need of having an ounce of respect being dangled fairly in front of them to entice them into undermining everyone else. And realise it’s a mess and never worked due to both the personality type of bps we got dumped under and all these allies who got ‘worked/played’ over and over as that same trick of pretending it’s not bacme that’s the issue leads fresh blood into repeating the mistake dozens before did.

Hence why documenting in ways that makes the M.O.s clear and readable if someone who doesn’t know s4me or have much time googled x or y is really important. So people can see the repeating patterns in full sequence and then comments are at the end (not interrupting) and other incidences are linked so it’s also clear it’s not a one off or made up.

Which is hard it seems in this varied landscape we have for me//cfs and because they are quite sneaky and lots pretend to be one thing to get in the door before showing their hand etc. Plus also sometimes I guess there are unavoidable things people get stitched up with eg like all patients getting coerced by their individual vulnerabilities into giving feedback that such props use to tell themselves they are doing good.

My gut feeling is we very much as a focus need to add to the list being more smart about how we can stem the flow of newer patients getting conned into supporting the gaslighters. And much smarter at thinking how we stop them being coerced into the next round of minions for PPAi and signing off another few decades of times and repeat under a rebrand. I’ve met these newbies and it’s scary how they fall for the ‘we should listen to those who recovered’ toxic bullshit and are brainwashed around a tear in which I assume is the snarky clinic staff and online gurus combined with work and home.

They aren’t like that in the early days when reasonably everyone assumes there will be healthcare instead of a different dystopian system at the end of the diagnosis.

So there is a specific window where we need to be pre-bunking the con artist tactics (they use ‘the haters will say we weren’t really ill’ and pretend it’s the others being not nice whilst what they are actually saying is the horrid stuff but somehow a lot of people fall for that veiling, and listen to the person playing victim who is trying to sell them something over the really ill person who is just trying to stop their life being as wrecked but are being taught ‘those people are downers to me the poor money spinner’) and ‘you’ll feel better if you just learn to reduce stress’ hidden stuff where they aren’t being told when they don’t feel better they will get blamed and that’s all about stopping them accessing acknowledgment of their illness when it makes them really disabled by having a fake treatment that if it fails the patient must just try again etc.

But it’s not a simple message to get thru both wuickly and in a way that won’t shock them or put them off. Yet we need to start working on doing it better.

We’ve all been there when we were out in the world and not wanting the smear of ‘being like them’ and those sorts of tricks used to get people to prove themselves to well people and not be conspiracy theorists as danglers to coerce people into pretending that it’s ok there is no research and treating an illness with self-motivation and/or brutality ie ‘behavioural psychology’ thru punishment and psychological reward
 
Last edited:
I think it really depends on what you mean by "BPS proponents".

As for anything else there will be hardliners that have made a career out of something and don't care what is going on and where engagement is pointless. This probably drives some policies in regards to ME/CFS.

But there will probably also be some "BPS proponents", for example graduate students, that can have their minds changed by giving them actual evidence. I wouldn't be suprised if there are "BPS proponents" in seminars by Brian Hughes that can enter and exit the room thinking differently about something.

The majority of people have never heard about ME/CFS or don't spend anytime thinking about it. A few of those might have a natural tendency towards a "BPS approach", but can still be convinced by solid evidence and logical thinking and sometimes all it matters it to get the "right few" working on a problem. I'm not quite sure whether the "BPS propenents" in that respect are that much worse than other groups when it comes to research, I fear the "right few" might be much more harder to get working on a problem with all the biobabble happening.
 
That’s my experience so far as well. 5 out of 5 have been a net negative. The last one hasn’t caused any direct harm yet because I’ve refused to comply with their encouragement to do more, but I can’t get rid of them and I have to waste time seeing them.

And they have caused indirect harm by teaching those around me harmful things, so there is even more pressure to do more, think differently and so on.

There is just no use for them. The people would be useful without their ideology, but then we might as well try to recruit non-believers instead of converting the believers. That also avoids the risk of unintentional negative consequences.
I think @rvallee is spot on in needing humour to tackle it

But for once it needs to be left to the proper pros to be given a sensible amount of time to put a good long plan of comedy things together that show the tactics up

and not just someone knee jerk thinking throwing the odd meme out without a plan is ‘something better than nothing’ rather than ruining that opportunity /avenue by it being made to look bitter and twisted back on people as well as creating fatigue in people who think pwme are always saying the same thing looking for attention and

Have no real messages

Because no one has coordinated proper messaging in a plan so there aren’t any that add up that everyone is sticking to that get these across in terms everyone else understands the real issues are indeed real

At the moment they know we’ve got gripes ‘because we don’t shut up’ then the bps get to tell everyone else why we whinge and steal the narrative.

I think there’s a lot of comedy in the cliches wellness and bps and con artist types use atm and particularly the fact that because they aren’t allowed to use the term cure anymore thanks to pace debunk and false advertising etc etc

they’ve switched to ‘recovery’ to hide that, and are basically using that term as a way to say explicitly’ill people deserve to be silenced and don’t deserve a voice unless they will be coerced into saying they’ve recovered - it’s their choice’ instead

Which is disability bigotry outright and a lot of those claiming recovered are given our voice instead as if they can speak for us and ever had the same illness or experience without anyone even checking or questioning being allowed.
 
or say publicly and make sure they know whatever they do can be observed and is well shown up and documented so the fake narratives no longer work or apply as they appeal to bystanders to take their side or ignore
I once proposed someone create an archive of what BPS types have said, because if there is a breakthrough they will scrabble to erase that stuff from existence...
 
Interesting question. I think the circumstances of any PWME being in contact with someone working using BPS thinking would be very relevant.

When I went to the CFS clinic 9 years ago I was only one year diagnosed and didn’t know all the politics and history. I was still trying to keep working and although I was aware discretionary exercise was dodgy I hadn’t grasped fully the significance of activity resulting in PEM. I decided for myself that I needed to attend the clinic so that my very supportive manager had something to push back on HR pressure to address my sickness absence levels, to be demonstrating my compliance with “treatment”. So although I was sceptical about what I was being offered based on what I’d picked up from PWME I had been in contact with I had to play the game with the clinic staff. I did say I wasn’t prepared to do exercise, but I fudged it by saying I was going to do more practical activity in my house sorting wardrobe etc. And then I blagged my quick 1-1 session by saying I had been more active when I hadn’t actually done the stuff in “my goals”. However I did end up doing too much because I tried to do the course sessions in addition to my part time work hours. But I had PEM due to increasing active days from 3 to 4 so had to reduce by one 5 hour work day for the rest of the course. I also spoke out in the sessions to let others know about MEA and AFME websites.

Then I had some contact with BACMEites in the James Lind research priorities sessions a few years ago that was rather different because they didn’t control the process, there were enough PWME and carers who definitely pushed back on bps agenda at a few points in discussions in the groups I was in especially pushing back to deprioritise researching fatigue, and getting serious ME on the top priorities.

I would also say that like party politics there’s a spectrum among individual healthcare professionals between uninformed about ME/CFS right up to full on BPS proponents and I doubt even if a medical treatment option is discovered the zealot psychosomatic believers are going to change their thinking. Others will bend with the prevailing wind.
 
I once proposed someone create an archive of what BPS types have said, because if there is a breakthrough they will scrabble to erase that stuff from existence...
I think this forum needs proper long term data protocol in place (I dont know what the current backend/database protocol is).

We have surely one of the largest archives of the Psychobehaviouralists in ME/CFS distributed in all our public (and some private) threads.
 
I feel like if there were consequences (reputational, monetary, legal… anything!) for their harmful views and misinformation then they’d clean up their act pretty quickly. I’m sure they’re aware that there’s a lot of research proving their theories wrong, but there’s no consequence for ignoring it or pushing harmful treatments – the opposite perhaps in that there’s so much systemic prejudice that it’s easier to further your career by being a part of it.

I worry that it’s all so widespread that trying to focus on alternatives isn’t enough because this will still dominate. However I completely understand that it seems fruitless trying to explain logical arguments to BPS proponents as it’s pretty cult-like in its reach and with how steadfast people are in defending illogical arguments for it.

Is there any use in using energy to lobby certain people or institutions to establish consequences for such harmful misinformation? If the NICE guidelines were laws/rules of conduct rather than serving suggestions I bet things would’ve changed a lot more by now.
 
I think this forum needs proper long term data protocol in place (I dont know what the current backend/database protocol is).

We have surely one of the largest archives of the Psychobehaviouralists in ME/CFS distributed in all our public (and some private) threads.
Absolutely. I mentioned this in the context of legal action once but even aside from that topic it is important for history.
 
I think if they cared that little there wouldn't have been the coordinated smear campaigns against the PACE reanalysis, NICE guideline and DecodeME.

They are desperately trying to defend their legacy.
I see those as 2 different things. One is about remaining in a position of being beneficiary the other is about what happens once that position is lost. Maybe the Garners of the world will keep on fighting the good ole anti-anti-recovery activist fight, but I'd be surprised if that applies to many more.

There are often no consequences for what people say or do in public, I doubt some words said on a forum will matter to the majority 20 years later. I cannot see any legal consequences happening, on what basis would that be? Did anything happen to the peptic ulcer (non-)treatment offerers?
 
Last edited:
I think it really depends on what you mean by "BPS proponents".
Good point.

To me, it means people that are trained in the fields of BPS, or that practice in those fields: psychology, physio, and fields based on or influenced by those.

I agree that it might be possible to «turn» some of the people that don’t have any strong feelings yet.

But trying to recruit or convert BPS believers seems about as useful as recruiting flat earthers for making a space rocket. The only way for them to contribute anything of value is for them to do the exact opposite of what they believe. Anything based on flat earth logic will fail.
 
I cannot see any legal consequences happening, on what basis would that be? Did anything happen to the peptic ulcer treatment offerers?
I have no wish to rehash the legal action thread unpleasantness here so all I will say is that what Wessely et al did with MECFS is if nothing else incredibly instructive and important in terms of the history of public health in this country.
 
Back
Top Bottom