Paul Garner on Long Covid and ME/CFS - BMJ articles and other media.

Nicky Campbells first wife had ME.

 

Both an expert and ‘no specialist’ at the same time depending on the source and in this quote presumably saying that he places his personal experience above systematic reviews, which is presumably why he rejects the NICE ME/CFS evidence review but not the Cochrane CFS exercise review which he believes accords with his personal experience.

Health care by bias. No different from homeopathy.

 

I thought all in all it was a good segment. Everyone else disagreed with Garner, including other doctors. Garner said emerging research confirms his approach, so it sounds as if a paper will be coming soon. Apart from the first few minutes with Garner, the rest was with other doctors and Long Covid sufferers, much better informed.

 

Garner just rattled off the fight or flight/fear avoidance blurb which we have heard repeated almost word for word umpteen times by Chalder, Sharpe and co. He (PG) even started on 'dualism'. Certainly did not come across as knowing what he was talking about, let alone an expert in Long Covid.

 

Amy Small (who was excellent) with this good point on Twitter:

Thank you to @NickyAACampbell & @bbc5live for this opportunity. I think the BBC need to reflect on the fact that they have stopped interviewing climate change deniers as it was damaging the cause. Is it not time to stop interviewing folk who believe we can think #longcovid away?

 

Yes absolutely. Except, homeopathy is pretty harmless, where as this is psychological abuse.

 

I skipped over the PG sections. It was really surprisingly good, the LC GPs and other sufferers made some great points.

I’m so glad it ended on clean the air, stop giving everyone Covid. Mentioned the Labour government devaluing non working people, and failing to do anything about the crisis. The Covid inquiry run as if the pandemic is over and in the past. Lots of other good points.

 

I’ve been to the opticians and am certainly not going to Paul Garner’s talk tonight, just in case he was worried. If he is indeed allowed to speak, what withmystrious forces silencing him.

 

“Emerging research” sounds like it exists but nobody else can see it.

 

It's a fun dialogue but all this stuff about Long Covid being a vascular disease is just as much garbage as Garner and potentially more harmful, I suspect.

Why oh why can't we have someone saying that we don't know?

Amy Small was talking about having access to services but as far as I can see services are either going to believe in good old BPS stuff - or maybe some new Garnered version with a deeply evolved tree response - or they are going to get anticoagulation for clots that aren't there.

 

That was a brilliant summary, @Hutan
Thank you!

 

That would require some insight into why the ME community are upset by his views, something PG has shown on many occasions not to have.

To label us as anti-recovery activists is very inflammatory. I know some people recover. But I know many more that didn't and it is medical profession (especially psychiatry and psychology) and broader societal values that have caused the stigma of this illness and the gross mistreatment of thousands of people. It is bad enough being chronically unwell (something PG is not) and having to come to terms with this and make adjustments, over and over again - but to also have to deal with medical stigma. This stigma is being generated by PG and his friends.

My take, as a retired psychiatrist and therapist, is he really believes in what he says. You would know more about how social circles in academic and clinical medicine operate in the UK, Jonathan. From my understanding he is retired from his job but still active in medical networks. He must hob-nob with lots of folk in the medical world. Perhaps not quite the old-boys club anymore but a new iteration, using social media, connecting and then meeting like minded people.

I, personally think he is trading on his professorship and head of Cochrane. Of course it legitimises his views. Two very powerful jobs that we would usually associate with a high level of intelligence and integrity. And he has plenty of friends/colleagues who agree with him. And perhaps some colleagues are too polite to disagree with him. Would a person like this listen to feedback anyway?

What does one do when one retires? He happened to get covid and a post-viral fatigue syndrome. He had to process what we all have had to process and like all people who become ill have to process. His defining moment appears to be, and that has taken him on this track - is feeling he wanted to do more exercise but thought it might set him back. He talks to someone in Sweden and then realises it is himself holding himself back. He pushes himself and he improves back to normal. He got a lot of media wanting to talk to him about this new (old) illness of "long covid". I can see him truly believing his psychological strategy worked. And he shows no understanding of why pwME may have an issue with his views.

Sadly, as we all know, that strategy does not work for the majority of us and for the majority of us it can make our illness worse. I do wonder if he will ever understand this and that we, also, have every right to criticise his viewpoint. I have said here before how shocked I am at his unprofessionalism. Even retired from the profession he is not "retired". Shaming him does not appear to have any effect...But why should he be ashamed? he truly believes he is right.

He has found a new purpose and passion for his retirement and with his new social network and self promotion will continue in his position and people will keep giving him a platform. It is nice to read he is being outnumbered by practising doctors who don't believe in BPS.

 

May 2020
This article is the one where he mentions his sister and her personal experience of ME/CFS and she coaches him.
https://meassociation.org.uk/2020/0...gue-a-game-of-snakes-and-ladders-20-may-2020/

also, if he’s swapped trance for “dreamy tunes” what kind of trance was he listening to?

 

The elephant in the room with respect to any disease being classified as psychological or in the mind is that it means treatment of every other physical medical complaint a person has in future is attributed to the same mental problems that doctors have diagnosed the patient with. In other words, anyone with mental problems is often assumed to be a liar, probably after drugs.

For example, it amazes me that someone who is diagnosed as (or admits to being) depressed is given SSRIs, almost by default, and if the first one doesn't cure the depression then a second one will be prescribed, then a third, then a fourth. All because a patient was unwise enough to say to a doctor that they were depressed.

I really believed that doctors could fix my depression and anxiety, but after four different SSRI prescriptions over 15 years I gave up on them. I would never rely on doctors for such problems again. In the end I found my own treatment that worked for me (and it didn't involve anything illegal).

I have never seen any evidence that proves that CBT can actually physically change the body or the brain or, long-term, change the mood, but doctors expect us to believe that.

 

There is no real research happening on this so most likely yet another open label pragmatic trial. Same as it ever was. It's a field in perpetual renewal that exists only to continue doing the same thing. Not things. Thing. The one thing they always do in loops: trying to prove themselves, and failing at that, argue that they just need to try again.

 

Reality appears to be slowly asserting itself. After following the human tradition of doing every possible mistake many times over, with many variations on the themes and doubling down several times over, some reason might begin to peek through the veil of nonsense.

Can't say this is encouraging but going with another tradition in the biopsychosocial cinematic universe: this looks like a trend towards some progress. Thanks for the write-up, it's rare to see such vigorous discussion that isn't mostly preaching to the choir. And to hear Garner get dummied for his nonsense. Which is odd for someone who has been silenced. Ah, well.

 

No I thought it is useful for specific issues like phobia or catastrophisaction (proper) but not ‘depression’ in the whole sense. And that it is intended as a short course to provide ‘coping’ in the sense of ‘sticking plaster’ for short term eg abuse or triggers and tools to not have a panic attack and ‘coping’ to get people to the point where they can do other treatment.

Not ‘coping’ in the sense of Maslows surviving, coping, thriving

this distinction is different and important because expecting people to live life with none of the eg stigma and impossibility of having eg committeemen’s adjusted or supported so they are doable without making you deteriorate ‘but here’s a tool for when you get a panic attack or to fend if someone being abusive to your face’ isn’t a sustainable situation to expect from anyone

putting in adjustments is ‘helping someone cope’

giving someone CBT to tell them how to control their panic attack whilst their life and health goes down the toilet is a dishonest misuse of that same term ‘helps them cope’

 

Of course the MEA profiled him. Of course they did. It was one thing for individual sick people, especially if new to the illness, to be hopelessly naive and all over him after five minutes of his saying that he was now an ME believer. That was bad enough. But at least based in desperation for advocates and or misplaced kindness. MEA ought know better.