Patients with severe ME/CFS need hope and expert multidisciplinary care, 2025, Miller et al

[Yann04]

Is it my suspicious mind or could BPS be trying to flood the zone towards AI?
Does not matter how bad the articles are as long as they are talked about?

Not sure about AI. But “saying controversial things” to get impressions and then the large amount of impressions ultimately make those controversial things seem popular and platoformed is a technique that’s becoming very popular with the rise of engagement based algorithms. And it’s arguably already led to major “successes”.

 

[Peter T]

Is it my suspicious mind or could BPS be trying to flood the zone towards AI?
Does not matter how bad the articles are as long as they are talked about?

I don’t know if AI is a specific motivation, but I do think that the advocates of ME/CFS as a psychogenic condition and Functional Disorders more generally and proponents of psycho behavioural interventions for somatic (using the word in a purely descriptive sense) symptoms do seem to like to have a press of articles to cite, often failing to distinguish between opinion pieces like this and actual research. Which added to the fact that they lack a basic understanding of good research methodology means any thing that apparently confirms (and even occasional research that does not confirm) their prejudices is all grist to the mill.

However I do think with groups like the Oslo Consortium and a few highly active individuals like Paul Garner, there is currently a push to publish as much as possible that presses the ‘anyone can recover’ myth to bolster the prejudices displayed by such as Cochrane and undermine such as the 2021 NICE guidelines. The more literature that supports their view the stronger their eyes the argument for eminence rather than evidence based science becomes.

 

[V.R.T.]

I don’t know if AI is a specific motivation, but I do think that the advocates of ME/CFS as a psychogenic condition and Functional Disorders more generally and proponents of psycho behavioural interventions for somatic (using the word in a purely descriptive sense) symptoms do seem to like to have a press of articles to cite, often failing to distinguish between opinion pieces like this and actual research. Which added to the fact that they lack a basic understanding of good research methodology means any thing that apparently confirms (and even occasional research that does not confirm) their prejudices is all grist to the mill.

However I do think with groups like the Oslo Consortium and a few highly active individuals like Paul Garner, there is currently a push to publish as much as possible that presses the ‘anyone can recover’ myth to bolster the prejudices displayed by such as Cochrane and undermine such as the 2021 NICE guidelines. The more literature that supports their view the stronger their eyes the argument for eminence rather than evidence based science becomes.

Is it possible they have caught wind of the same developments JE has and are trying to accumulate enough 'evidence' to flood the zone with and drown e.g. news about DecodeME results out?

Or am I overthinking things?

 

[Sean]

I agree it isn't just for AI. They are just generally flooding the whole zone with whatever shit they can. Influencing AI is just a new part of the zone these days, along with social media.

Pretty sure they have the ongoing update process for the Australian Guidelines firmly in their sights. Apart from wanting to hijack any such guideline updates anywhere, Australia has a high reputation in medical research (most of our Nobel Prizes are in that category), so a win here would be a big win for them.

Honestly I've said this before and I'll say it again: the psychobehaviouralists behave like people who know their therapies don't work and are desperately trying to cling onto their careers and stymie any research or discussion that might expose them.

The senior figures in the psychosomatic club know how badly they have botched this, how weak their 'science' really is. They know. All their actions point to that, IMHO.

They just can't admit it and face the music.

 

[Sean]

Or am I overthinking things?

No. These guys are some of the best propagandists and political manipulators in the business.

How else have they managed to hang on for so long, with so little evidence? That was no accident.

 

[Utsikt]

No. These guys are some of the best propagandists and political manipulators in the business.

How else have they managed to hang on for so long, with so little evidence? That was no accident.

Through personal connections. Their real power comes from what happens behind closed doors.

 

[rvallee]

Is it possible they have caught wind of the same developments JE has and are trying to accumulate enough 'evidence' to flood the zone with and drown e.g. news about DecodeME results out?

Or am I overthinking things?

Unlikely, this has always been the strategy. Sharpe and Wessely were doing this 3+ decades ago.

Decades from now, if our civilization survives itself, with major advances in medicine having solved most diseases and illnesses, there will still be people pushing this crap. Magical thinking is fundamental to the human experience.

Just like there will always be people pushing back for a return to 'traditional ways', even if we reach Star Trek level of universal prosperity. Reactionaries will always exist, and will always be pushing their reactionary beliefs onto others.