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

That's the bit that stood out to me and why I started the clip there. It's shocking.

Thanks for doing the transcript. Do you mind if I post just the transcript on Twitter. Will do it without your avatar.

 

If I was writing a satire (which I hope I may be able to one day), that is a line I would use – it’s like something out of Spinal Tap! Surely most medics and scientists are intelligent enough to see this nonsense what it is, aren’t they?

 

That's a scientific nonsense red flag right there: "similar kinds of conditions". Rock solid scientific argument sure to follow on from that ... not!

Showing that she is profoundly deluded by PG's BS.

Does PG really not see what a fool he is making of himself.

 

The more I see of Garner's antics the more I feel moved to contact him and point out what a complete fool he is making if himself, along with Flottorp.
If I did Twitter I would have tweeted by now. But I am glad I don't.
He has sunk to the level of popular alternative fact medicine, which seems extraordinary from someone linked to Cochrane.
It is almost as if he wants to expurgate himself from a brief association with ME advocacy (Out Damned Spot).

I would be interested to know how he responds to the arguments laid out in plain English in my testimony to the NICE committee. And why he should think there is any corruption either in that or in the committee who followed the same approach.

 

Yes, you can imagine that line being uttered with heavy sarcasm.

 

She also beat LC with positivity so . . .

She approves, "don't let your mind bully your body" on her instagram.

 

Garner's behaviour explains so much about Cochrane, doesn't it? The anti-pharma and the pro-lifestyle changes bias.

In the end it all seems to come down to difficulty adjusting to the reality of having a mortal, vulnerable body and the existence of terrible uncontrollable diseases.

I can understand if someone needs positive thinking beliefs to manage their fears. There's just a problem when there is also claims that it's an actual treatment.

 

Cannot help wondering if there might be political (ME-related politics here!) forces driving some of this, no matter how obliquely. All about cutting back on public health costs. Patient-blaming for lack of determination with BSP 'fixes' is a the go-to approach for that; those striving to bring it about may well be starry eyed with thoughts of peerages, whatever.

 

In PG's own words:

So what is to be done about the symptoms (he believes) are NOT connected to perception? And how is that recovery if you are still symptomatic?

ie "some of the symptoms are connected . . ."

 

I believe in a biomedical solution because the just-try-harder and the think-myself-well and the good-lifestyle approaches didn't work. And also because over time my illness worsened and it becomes harder to believe in non-biomedical solutions with increasing illness severity.

This depiction of believers in biomedical solutions as ideologists is nonsense. The belief is the result of experience, understanding and education.

 

Yes, so many people who were ill long before any forum or information on the internet had positive beliefs that they would get better and tried ever so many things.

Even now when people get ill there has been so much positive press for exercise (and has done for decades) that I expect there's barely anyone (Until covid and twitter) that did not have the idea that exercise would be good for getting back to normal.

 

Maybe it's the fact that I live a sad life --- but I laughed when I read this.
Others, long familiar with psychological interventions, and having seen tragic outcomes, simply dismiss this as nonsense.
If these statements were correct, then surely the PACE trial would have seen at least some of those housebound, ++++ return to their previous normal healthy lives? Maybe the healed haven't revealed themselves, or only reveal themselves to the Paul Garner's - his similarly minded practitioners.
EDIT - just occurred to me that the NICE Committee, which produced the new guideline, dismissed some interventions on the grounds that they didn't represent value for money - so Paul Garner's claims fail the test of being cost effective - even if you accept that they work for some people. I haven't seen any credible evidence that they do work.

As per others above - this seems like some form of comedy. Presumably the interviewer was really thinking - we've got one here!
It reminds me of Paul Garner's appearance on BBC Newsnight, it looked like the interviewer was struggling to keep it together as Paul explained his moment of enlightenment -- moving from being ill to realising [that] it was all in his head and he could overcome the negative thoughts and hey presto he recovered to his former health.
The Newsnight program could have been challenged on the grounds that it was a Professor of Medicine self harming, with the spectacle broadcast on TV ---- same re Twitter but it doesn't have producers etc.

 

I am "sure" he just means he is taking more time these days to "smell the roses". (IF, of course, his sense of smell is not impaired by LC.)

 

David Bell's follow-up also found that much depends on how one defines recovery....

 

There's a thread here on his insight here:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/prognosis-of-me-cfs-–-by-david-s-bell-md.1668/

 

Another thing I think people like PG get confused over is that the BPS approach is the standard. It has been the norm, the entrenched status quo view for decades. As such it is the view that is in the position of being overturned by a paradigm shift of newer and better understanding. That is what science does. That is what it is for.

Whatever PG or anyone of our beliefs is it will yield eventually to reality. As Hutan pointed out, it's all about framing and whether that framing most closely matches reality.