News from France

Isn't this story in the English page too?
Oh, how very frustrating!
My memory seems to have played on me again!
I just checked the archived version from September in the hopes that this time I did not mess up, alas...

I'm very sorry for the misinformation, everyone!
I'll try to figure out how my mind came up with that as soon as I got the energy for that.
Hopefully, there's still something there and I didn't blank out completely.

Now, off to the kitchen to drop some stuff on the floor! *DisabilityThugLifeMeme*
 
It would be more fruitful for researchers to use scientific experiments and data to convince others of their views (e.g. objective data on improvement and recovery following CBT) rather than trying to change guidelines like this.​

The problem, of course, being that psychosomatic, er, activists have failed to demonstrate clear benefit using robust methodology, so have turned to inferior methodology and brazen propaganda to give the appearance of substance and legitimacy to their claims.

This type of lobbying will only encourage further controversy, conflict and division.​

Exactly. As intended, to help prop up their act.

Turns out the hysteria was always the response to people having ME/CFS, not the people with ME/CFS.
Yes, there is a very serious psychosocial and moral pathology in play here, alright. That is beyond dispute.

But it ain't the patients who have it, though we are wearing the horrendous real-world consequences of it. :mad:

So what is the pre-planned agenda for this highly organised swerve? Where did it seem to converge with the consensus, and where did it then plan to diverge?

Exactly where and how does its planned future differ from the hard-won agenda which the bulk of patients insist on instead? Must mass hysteria ensue therefore?

At this parting of the ways, without bandying words, is there a slam-dunk refutation or denunciation to alert this gathering crowd to the grave error of their ways:

- the Lancet, the Journal of Psychosomatic Research, Science Direct, Elsevier, AMELI, ANRS/MIE, and France (government and press)? How can Retraction Watch help?

Over-riding errors, inflated evidence, and wastrel directives amounting to a costly and tragic misdirection - the grave error of their ways.

Where is the strategically targeted evidence of swelling sick-leaves (across the world)? Simon Wessely's "extreme personality traits" don't apply at this scale.

PEM and syndrome (symptomatic flare, relapse, decline, brain / muscle limitation): where is the targeted evidence, rigorously reviewed by my lavishly libelled NICE?
Lancet:
Long COVID in the general population: reassurance without dismissal
Lemogne, Oct 26

S4ME:
Long COVID in the general population: reassurance without dismissal
- Cedric Lemogne's comment in The Lancet, Regional Health, Europe, upon:

S4ME:
Recovery trajectories and predictors of symptom resolution in post-COVID-19 condition: a population-based cohort study, 2026, Brunet et al.

Cedric Lemogne says: "Two priorities follow:

"First, epidemiological surveillance and outcome assessment should move beyond the presence of any persistent symptom to identify clinically consequential PCC."

[ [ [ What does this mean? Does it broaden the catchment? Does it confuse research"? ] ] ]

[ [ [ Which bits do and don't make sense? ] ] ]

[ [ [ Does it also mean he cannot abide any "syndrome" interfering with his re-defined collections of indecipherable, personalised, somatic "symptoms"? ] ] ]

"This requires pre-infection baselines, repeated measurements, appropriate comparison groups, and multidimensional assessment of recovery, including symptoms, functioning, and participation. [9]"

[ [ [ Given the proviso - gone beyond particular symptoms - what comparisons are "appropriate", as proposed? And appropriate to what or who? ] ] ]

[ [ [ Objective and / or subjective measurements? "Recovery" by which scale? Did he already say there is limited recovery in his "polysymptomatic" grouping? ] ] ]

[9] refers to: A core outcome set for post-COVID-19 condition in adults for use in clinical practice and research: an international Delphi consensus study
Lancet Respir Med. 2022; 10:715-724
Full Text, Full Text (PDF), Scopus (109), PubMed, Google Scholar

"Second, treatment research should focus particularly on people who remain polysymptomatic and disabled after the period of fastest improvement."

[ [ [ WOW wow wow
He has accepted the evidence that an initial period of potential improvement did not need "intervention" to modify mind, thought, belief, behaviour and plans - never needed. Misled clinics across England thought it crucial, built a base, contracts, evidence, special interest group and credibility on this pretext, refuse to comply, give no other choice, will not make CBT and loading programs optional. ] ] ]

[ [ [ Eeeeeeeeek, ah, so, he wishes to focus on us - other - survivors instead ] ] ]

[ [ [[ [ [ Polysymptomatic and not recovered - are we talking about ME/CFS/LC? ] ] ]

"Evidence is already emerging:

"cognitive behavioural interventions and combined physical and mental-health rehabilitation probably improve selected outcomes, although the optimal intervention, target phenotype, and timing remain uncertain. [10]"

[ [ [ Yet another big fat research budget? Please. Don't give it to them instead, give it back to us. As @neophyte32 identified - a spectacular role reversal. ] ] ]

[ [ [ Ok, so. Is his evidence high or low quality for his "probability"? Did France really want to swerve off-road upon his probability? ] ] ]

[ [ [ "Target phenotype" Said Wallitt and Wessely. Uncertain target - hold your fire. We can all bank on uncertainty. Social security and social service can maintain indefinitely all the suspicion it planned to resolve. More unresolved suspicion is more power to your elbow, when push comes to shove. Not at all sociable. ] ] ]

[10] refers to:
Interventions for the management of long covid (post-covid condition): living systematic review,
Zeraatkar, D. ∙ Ling, M. ∙ Kirsh, S. ∙ et al.
BMJ. 2024; 387, e081318
Crossref, Scopus (41), PubMed, Google Scholar

"The next challenge is therefore not simply to count long COVID, but to identify early who will recover, who will not, and what can alter these trajectories."

[ [ [ Mind control? ] ] ]

Contributors
- Cédric Lemogne:
- writing—original draft.

Declaration of interests
- Cédric Lemogne's work on post-COVID-19 condition in the past 36 months has been supported by:

ANRS|MIE (Agence nationale de recherche sur le Sida et les hépatites virales | Maladies infectieuses émergentes).
This.

The label 'Delphi process' is fast becoming a warning flag to me about quality and reliability.

-------------------

The investigation by my University was not just 'very unpleasant', it was also far too long. It lasted 13 months! I had to take lawyers against my own University! In addition, it was unnecessary, not least because a University should simply establish the facts and, if reasonable, defend its professor from outside attacks.​
Edzard Ernst​

Interesting how selective universities can be in which professors they protect from criticism.

I am going to take a guess that it is the ones who bring in the most money who get the most protection for their 'academic freedoms'.
 
Last edited:
From the UK thread:
The Sense about Science folks are at it again, with Cédric Lemogne, one of the prominent promoters of psychosomatic models of LC and ME/CFS in France, being nominated for what might be the most pathetic attempt at handing out a participation trophy ever, short-listed for the same prize they handed to Simon Wessely for doing the same thing
 
Back
Top Bottom