-
New Forum Software Installed (Still a few issues but reopening the forum) More details.
NHS Talking Therapies Glaring Failures, Are Highlighted By A Focus On One of The Long-Term Conditions It Targets : IBS
- Thread starter Sly Saint
- Start date
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It's pretty easy to see the problem. Homeopaths claim the same thing about their very expensive water. So does Scientology with their 'ghost detectors'. Claiming something without evidence doesn't make it any more true if it's done within the regulatory framework of scientific medicine using the resources of health care systems. Only egomaniacs would think this is a valid way of doing things.
But kids these days call it evidence-based medicine. And they're freaking weird for doing that.
LOL. LMAO even. Holy giant grift, Batman.
Anyone have any knowledge of what the readership of this is? I saw there were 45 comments but 99% seems to be spam.
It’s interesting to read but is there a readership among health professionals.
It’s interesting to read but is there a readership among health professionals.
Sly Saint
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Dr Mike Scott (cbtwatch site owner) is a colleague of @Joan Crawford and has been challenging IAPT and then Talking Therapies NHS activities and stats for a while now.
eta:
although I see what you mean about the spam!! b***** ****
Yes just wondered how wide his reach is.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I don't think there's much that patients can be expected to do when a system so important, health care, is so willing to scam them, the public and basically themselves with junk like this. It's so blatant and insulting and no one in that system can't seriously claim otherwise. They know it's a scam, but it's a regular paycheck and ultimately everyone is self-serving, this is why most human economic activity is exploitative, it's in our nature.
POSIWID: the purpose of a system is what it does. This system is built as a scam, it doesn't matter what individuals do, the system won't budge because it's doing exactly what it's expected to do by the people who fund and administer it.
I think they are coerced into it and they can’t most of them ‘be honest and not polite’
and that’s the awfulness of the ‘scam’
even those not literally threatened have been trained to ‘be polite and gizza score that will put our gravy train on the road’ or else. I mean ‘don’t be like Dave .. who wasn’t very nice about things and people don’t like him’ after all it’s not you that a good score will effect etc. it’s appalling coercion built in as ‘process’ and how patients are told to act as etiquette. There is a no win - get socially sneered at at best if you are honest and keep money from being wasted. But of course everyone tells themselves it’s not their one piece of feedback that will make the difference there - and who knows perhaps they just don’t count it anyway given drop out scores. So even if you did bother you are only hurting yourself.
nhs need to start having independent oversight of the methods of coercion we are all so used to we accept as if normal
the whole thing can’t continue this way.
and I think we need to stop suggesting it saves money - that’s what THEY try and sell themselves on vs fibs about how much we have appointments but it doesn’t add up. I think getting rid of these kingdoms would save a fortune. They cost a fortune.
and proper care at least has the benefit of working quite quickly when it works. The odd follow up appointment is nowhere near the cost if these courses - nevermind the debility they leave behind being added in.
like ‘I must be seen to have done it otherwise they will put a note on my record’ and ‘if I don’t complete this nonsense that doesn’t work then I’ll never get access to any of the real care’
these things started as hoops to delay real treatment or investigations like having to do physio before proper treatment or look at injuries was to prevaricate access there
the gall of these areas was the lying methodology they’ve been allowed where they’ve then claim led it works. No one ever thought it did.
it was just there to hide waiting lists because you can’t get in the waiting list for the real thing until you’ve waited fir CBT and done it and then magically after 2yrs if they can stretch it that long they say you don’t get real treatment either because‘it’s chronic’
Last edited:
Oh I forgot to add the latest gross thing which seems to be
‘weaponising the term hope’
and accusing people being honest that they are ill because they won’t be coerced into lying to themselves tgat they’ll magically get better
it’s just the worst kind of bullying in plain sight - hiding it behind weaponising teens bystanders at first glance think are ‘nice’ not realising it’s far worse than toxic positivity when it’s oppressive invalidation being done in front of their eyes to someone and being hidden under pretend nice words ‘bad intentions being charades as niceties not with bad purpose’
but yeah it’s a plain threat. Don’t say you think you have or will progress or recover and you will be called all sorts. The word hope weaponised
they aren’t there to give people real hope it’s just another term for ‘shut your trap and learn the etiquette that no one wants to hear about nor cares about sick people except those needing you to claim results’
Just look at how disgustingly embedded as a conversion course this ‘negative feedback or telling anyone you aren’t recovering is dirty, dirty’ this content is
As psych anything this is as anti mental health bullying re education to force people to change what they say as it gets
It’s blatant isn’t it - even in its own descriptions - that it’s nothing to do with caring about it helping anyone’s heakth just some weirdo bullying course to enforce behavioural modification for them to shut up and be too scared to think they deserve healthcare
I’m shocked how blatant it is and that it’s this far on and there’s no outrage or court case - there must be something going on with the usual sound the alarm means for doing this can be my only conclusion.?
Last edited:
Kitty
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Some might, if they were forewarned. I decline depression questionnaires if they're nothing to do with the issue, but only since I realised they can be misused.
One occasion was during referral to a specialist. The questionnaire was on the GP's computer screen, and she was going to record my responses as I read through it. I asked her about the reasoning behind completing it; she apologised, saying it just comes up automatically during the process. She assured me I didn't have to answer it.
My referral read "?inflammatory swelling, PIP joints bilateral". So a GP, faced with what she thought could be rheumatoid arthritis, was asked to waste half a consultation working out an effing depression score.
It's so bad isn't it. And whilst it sounds like you manage the interaction well noone ever knows what actually gets written down about you, even if it seemed to be taken as intended at the time. WHich shouldn't really be the case for anything and is a major issue for healthcare that perhaps it is time that people and official organisations started flagging and doing something about.Some might, if they were forewarned. I decline depression questionnaires if they're nothing to do with the issue, but only since I realised they can be misused.
One occasion was during referral to a specialist. The questionnaire was on the GP's computer screen, and she was going to record my responses as I read through it. I asked her about the reasoning behind completing it; she apologised, saying it just comes up automatically during the process. She assured me I didn't have to answer it.
My referral read "?inflammatory swelling, PIP joints bilateral". So a GP, faced with what she thought could be rheumatoid arthritis, was asked to waste half a consultation working out an effing depression score.
Agree that it sounds like something that does need a campaign in order to inform - and would probably benefit from not being just pwme, particularly given really our 'super-category' is just that anyone who doesn't have certain red flags and fits certain demographics seem to have been pushed into one big dodgy pot that might have lots of different names but I don't think most doing it care (that's just for show) and it's just a big pseudoterm for 'might be nothing/caused by mind so send em off to mental health'.
In any other industry collecting private information without good reason or rationale is being banned slowly - given the implications and historical issues with dishonest usage and twisting of these things, not least due to it feeling clear those suggesting these questionnaires don't seem keen to calibrate them so they stop suggesting anyone with disability or illness has mental illness based on their symptoms basically being re-categorised as counting towards these things.
You can see how easy it becomes to sell eg Sharpe's ambition to fudge a claim that 'all illnesses are at least in part psychological' managing to be manufactured by categorising anyone who is exhausted or disabled as 'mental health' when you look at what these things are doing. And young GPs probably made to feel scared they have to do these because 'if they miss a mental health issue' and duty of care bla. Very naughty how so many parts of the chain are just getting used like puppets.
Anyway the topic of information collection is important and I think that it needs that official advice and interruption because most are not in a position to annoy their GP or other HCP so get forced to try and 'play the game' otherwise they'll never get any care, and have no clue of the implications if they do it. And don't feel without something official to point to that they wouldn't get called paranoid or the other favourite 'conspiracy theorist' if they tried to explain.
It is so seriously dodgy and looking at what is going on with those things over a decade and realising it is if not deliberate initially a benefit they are indeed capitalising on that when you see eg the PROMS stuff you now realise how badly
A post on a possible treatment for IBS has been moved to the discussion thread:
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
Irritable Bowel Syndrome
tornandfrayed
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.c...disability-employment-strategy-will-not-work/
What it says on the tin.
The white paper announced: “To tackle poor mental health, the leading driver of ill health-related inactivity, the government has committed to continuing to expand access to NHS Talking Therapies for adults with common mental health conditions in England.”
The white paper claimed that “extensive literature and studies” showed that NHS Talking Therapies improved employment outcomes.
Last month, the new Labour government’s white paper mentioned a forthcoming evaluation of the impact of NHS Talking Therapies.
But when that research was published last week by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there was no mention of it on the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) website, and no press release issued by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall.
After three years, there was an increase of just 1.4 percentage points in the probability of someone being a paid employee, and after seven years that had increased to only 1.5 percentage points.
To qualify as being a “paid employee” in the study, someone only needed to have earned more than £0 in a month.
After three years, the average increase in monthly earnings for someone who had completed the treatment was just £17.
Not sure where to put this as an indictment of Talking Therapies including CBT.
(I've also posted on the DWP thread)
What it says on the tin.
The white paper announced: “To tackle poor mental health, the leading driver of ill health-related inactivity, the government has committed to continuing to expand access to NHS Talking Therapies for adults with common mental health conditions in England.”
The white paper claimed that “extensive literature and studies” showed that NHS Talking Therapies improved employment outcomes.
Last month, the new Labour government’s white paper mentioned a forthcoming evaluation of the impact of NHS Talking Therapies.
But when that research was published last week by the Office for National Statistics (ONS), there was no mention of it on the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) website, and no press release issued by work and pensions secretary Liz Kendall.
After three years, there was an increase of just 1.4 percentage points in the probability of someone being a paid employee, and after seven years that had increased to only 1.5 percentage points.
To qualify as being a “paid employee” in the study, someone only needed to have earned more than £0 in a month.
After three years, the average increase in monthly earnings for someone who had completed the treatment was just £17.
Not sure where to put this as an indictment of Talking Therapies including CBT.
(I've also posted on the DWP thread)
Last edited:
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
It's like the dude who traded up from a paperclip and ended up with a house. But in reverse.
"We traded this house for a paperclip and are happy to report a $.01 profit from the venture, given that the house was gifted to us and we don't need it anyway"
Just super duper smart people. They even set the bar at the lowest possible setting and couldn't manage to crawl over it, but they still report that it's a success. All of this ties down to what they do to us, it's the same giant scam, a lie built on lies that they then lie about some more.
"We traded this house for a paperclip and are happy to report a $.01 profit from the venture, given that the house was gifted to us and we don't need it anyway"
Just super duper smart people. They even set the bar at the lowest possible setting and couldn't manage to crawl over it, but they still report that it's a success. All of this ties down to what they do to us, it's the same giant scam, a lie built on lies that they then lie about some more.
Yann04
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Oh dear. The psychologisers must be very happy with that assertion.
Lou B Lou
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes, it's the new name for IAPT
tornandfrayed
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Here's the link to the ONS report -
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ploymentstatusengland/april2014todecember2022
The Office for National Statistics is a government agency @dave30th, though I doubt I need to tell you that.
This assertion is being thrown around including on the awful Fraser Nelson C4 Dispatches programme, but I don't think it's true for the primary condition for a claim (I'm not up to checking). However a high number of claimants cite mental health issues as secondary conditions for reasons we've discussed ad infinitum and are bleeding obvious.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...ploymentstatusengland/april2014todecember2022
The Office for National Statistics is a government agency @dave30th, though I doubt I need to tell you that.
This assertion is being thrown around including on the awful Fraser Nelson C4 Dispatches programme, but I don't think it's true for the primary condition for a claim (I'm not up to checking). However a high number of claimants cite mental health issues as secondary conditions for reasons we've discussed ad infinitum and are bleeding obvious.
tornandfrayed
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Sorry my last post maybe didn't come across right. I'm railing against the intransigence out there and the frustration at saying things repeatedly that no one wants to hear.
Ash
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Yes quite literally professional time wasters.