Oslo Chronic Fatigue Network

Their website:

https://www.oslonetwork.no/about-us

 

What's alternative about it? It's been the predominant paradigm in official guidance and in the medical literature until very recently. Most governments' guidelines have until recently been oriented towards their viewpoints. Oodles of research funding has gone their way.

Wonder why no-one thought of that before. A singularly alternative view, isn't it?

This is actually quite puzzling.

Time to consider? Again, theirs has been the predominant paradigm until very recently. In the UK all official pre-2021 guidance - CG53, the RCP report from the 1990s - took the BPS view. Only recently has that begun to change.

This represents a fundamental misunderstanding of what is and what is not ethical. It is not remotely ethical to give a patient unevidenced explanations for their symptoms. Often their approach involves some level of implicit or explicit coercion (ranging from encouraging stimulus-challenge in a patient reporting adverse effects all the way through to sectioning & deliberately isolating patients). Some of their practices raise the most serious of ethical questions that there are in medicine.

And there are plenty of books, online stories, and more recently systematic promotion by researchers of precisely these narratives on sites like RN. In my opinion a further ethical problem arises when researchers deliberately promote stories claiming benefit and deliberately ignore stories of harm.

 

See Chronic fatigue syndromes: real illnesses that people can recover from, 2023, The Oslo Chronic Fatigue Consortium for further discussion of them.

 

Well, at least they give the strong impression that nobody ever believed in what they have been saying for 50 years (their first paper is dated 1977). The PACE trial never existed. Odd to pretend you never existed.

 

"
Affiliations
MindBodyLab, University of Oslo
EAPM European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine"

The website is a whole lot of fantasy (and not the readable kind)....

 

A lesson in sophism isn't it. Almost like a philosophy exam where you have to learn the different aspects of fallacial argument and reply like a reading comprehension to where they are.

Thanks for going through it so well.

Apalling that we have to do it.

I'm aware of free speech but this should come with a label of the 'ism' and propaganda that it is as a group, it's one thing holding a position as a theoretical academic and doing this sort of thing on the side (where it's a spectacle to watch a debate of) but I'm starting to think there should be questions about responsibility in public life that I think @NelliePledge mentioned on another thread, and safeguarding/spokesperson type issues if there are positions which directly great a power differential and a responsibility over others etc. - in a lot of people/sectors/situations these two things are normally separated.

 

Yes this is the perpetrators of something that did and continues to do harm directly via their treatments and directly via their spreading of misinformation believing that they can avoid apologising or acknowledging.

If they actually were responsible souls bothered about either the future of psychology or the patients having access to any of that side if and when it is relevant to some then they would have understood that their stepping aside and mea culpa was vital so that they ceased to tar those profession(s)/broader area.

I'm pretty sure that it would be a first if these individuals adopted an ethical approach or evidence that was sound and not based on bias (so it is informed consent rather than misled consent), so it is very naughty using the non-sequitur of 'it is crucial that' to infer they are concerned about it - past and future?

The irony of wording things to mislead even in the line about ethics. Says it all as a 'when people show you who they are' etc to me

I think once you've taken advantage of access to something that might influence someone's mind, and safety/life, and got it so wrong it probably potentially harmed - and carried it on for so many years without checking for harms - then the only honourable thing to do is realise you can't be near those people, nevermind have power over how they are perceived.

It is indeed coercion and all of those other undesirable and problematic inappropriate things that shouldn't be involved in a position of responsibility. Add a heighten aspect to it where 'mind' is involved.

 

Is this some kind of sick joke? “Defend discredited strategies for recovery to the last drop of blood” would be more accurate.