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

It reminds me of when some Britain First/BNP far right party erected a sign in memorial to a girl who was run over and killed by a guy who wasn’t British. They did it for clout/attention and the girl’s family were disgusted her name and memory was being used to promote something she and they disapproved of (racial hatred/division).

Actually, writing that out I can see exactly why I feel so repulsed.
The strategies and morality of those groups are the same. Side by side they show a similarly hateful agenda. Every day it's impossible not to see it. Reactionaries, all of them.
 
I’m not going to write what I think as I will just make work for the mods. Suffice to say, he is a sea lion.

I’m glad Sarah has called out the grief hijacking and clout chasing.

No need to use my feed for self-promotion Paul Garner. I am very well aware of your position and we all know how some of you tried to use Maeve’s entirely preventable death and inquest into how it happened to promote your views….
 

Attachments

  • IMG_4462.jpeg
    IMG_4462.jpeg
    237.2 KB · Views: 41
Last edited:
There's something wrong with these people. Garner seems to be stuck in a ruminative cycle. The irony being that CBT is highly effective for that.
Even deluded (or pretend-deluded) people thinking violin-playing magic could help wouldn't write what he chose to ie what has been written regarding the new guideline rather than blathering on deludedly about 'try this' so it doesn't fit the mould for that excuse [of any good intentions - interesting to see if he or any of them choose to attend said meet up and listen if so?].

If someone died due to a faulty car or fairground ride and then a seller of the same thing put a post selling it on a family members thread or comment then it would be seen as terrible.

But of course this is kind of worse isn't it because it is about trying to insinuate and then frustrate, still, even after all the investigations via a 3yr guideline process and inquest and prevention of future death report underlining that change is needed to be effectively campaigning for something that had these adverse consequences and prevents access to care to continue to be enforced and the default ie it is about preventing access to something and preventing those changes?


I struggle even to put this down to 'just' being deluded and can only say that this post confirms callousness to the consequences of 'something' (and let's be honest it isn't just the product, it's something much more political and isn't a belief that the ideology cures anymore as I'm not sure they care if it does just that's what is deserved or correct for 'this/these people') he wants to push for some reason I also don't believe is because it helped him given even he knows he didn't do it himself.
 
Even deluded (or pretend-deluded) people thinking violin-playing magic could help wouldn't write what he chose to ie what has been written regarding the new guideline rather than blathering on deludedly about 'try this' so it doesn't fit the mould for that excuse [of any good intentions - interesting to see if he or any of them choose to attend said meet up and listen if so?].

If someone died due to a faulty car or fairground ride and then a seller of the same thing put a post selling it on a family members thread or comment then it would be seen as terrible.
Dunno if this will veer into politics, but to me this is closer to Alex Jones, taunting the victims of a horrible tragedy while denying it even happened as it did. A sign of a deeply disturbed moral compass, and extremely creepy. The kind of thing that will shock consciences years from now, but right now would barely rate a shrug. In fact, best as I can tell, leads to enthusiastic kudos from most of the profession.

When history is the judge of a disaster, you have the absolute worst case of it: it was such a disaster that it was impossible to stop it, slow it down, let alone punish those responsible. Given where we are, punishment for this tragedy would have to be especially strong, make examples out of those most responsible, or it will simply never stop.
 
The Oslo RCT in long Covid intervention of psychoeducation and increasing mental and physical activity led to large benefits. These were even BIGGER effects in those in the upper quartile of PEM.

This is important. IE BIGGER BENEFITS IN PEOPLE WITH PEM


He's yelling now.
 
He’s yelling about table 10 in supplement 3 where they found a few minuscule differences on only a couple of the subscales.

Of course without any correction for multiple comparison.

And it’s an intention to treat analysis, which doesn’t account for dropout. Which is problematic when 26 % did not finish the intervention..
 
Shouting into the void. Posted a day ago, and only 2 likes.
Love that for him. I really think if everyone leaves him to it, he will put people off eventually. He’s not engaging.

Like those religious groups who put a speaker in the town centre or near a train station, wearing a sandwich board and handing out leaflets about religion or the world ending. I’m sure they think they’re helping/saving souls/warning the lost, but everyone who isn’t them just thinks “? okaaaaaay, you do you, if you feel you need to. I’ll be avoiding eye contact”.
 
I can tell from the title having 'brief' as the first word that there is your issue with the method/switch-and-bait

PEM is basically saying: if you exert then you get worse afterwards and if you don't take that time (which it imposes due to horrible loss of function and symptoms, and yet many of us like having the worst flu and forcing yourself into work before you are 'ready' soldier through) to recover and are forced to do this continually.... well it is down the line with huge debilitation from a long-term deterioration (they insist on calling it 'relapse' to misdirect of course because you are getting worse than you have been, and this makes it sound like being ill was temporary and you recover then get wors again, and it also sounds like mental health with their labels).

In the interim we are all so conscientous and keen that the lie it isn't a serious illness and we won't be harmed by this makes us all harm ourselves whilst thinking we are doing good, along of course with the putting words in people's mouths by coercion brainwashing techniques forcing 'more positive answers' out of people. It seems from below to also then perceive things getting worse and symptoms not as symptoms but as 'moderate stress that may promote thriving' and that perceiving these as symptoms would be 'maladaptive'. Before they then fill out all the questionnaires ie training in answering the questions differently despite having the same or worse symptoms or debility by brainwashing them to think that's merely them being 'maladaptive' and 'stressing themselves in order to promote thriving'?

Altering these expectancies is thus the purpose of the intervention.
Hence, the first stage provided cognitive reassurance that bodily symptoms do not necessarily indicate a disease but rather a disorder that is temporary and amendable.
prompting patients to infer that recovery would require an active pursuit of physical and mental tasks, thereby fostering positive stimuli expectancies. The therapists also questioned patients’ perceived benefit of symptom surveillance and explained why conscious awareness of the relationship between activities and symptoms may perpetuate the latter.
The latter always included an explanation of normal responses to stressful situations, emphasizing that moderate stress may promote thriving, and how certain infections (eg, COVID-19) could trigger maladaptive responses and diverse, unpredictable, and bothersome symptoms (eg, fatigue, dyspnea, and brain fog).

OH yeah, and using the drop-out rate by making a treatment the illest can't complete and then excluding those results so hey presto the group who does finish is then a group with the iller ones with PEM filtered out.

A total of 473 patients with mild to moderate PCC were assessed for eligibility (n = 364 physician referred; n = 109 self-referred); 314 were included (225 females [72%]; mean [SD] age, 43 [12] years) and 231 completed the primary end point evaluation.

A really horrible con.

And these people are well aware. They know full well and were told by the Nice analysis that they needed to be looking at 12, 24, 26 months down the line as the primary outcome. And any normal trial would be required to do this to check harm. You know like if a drug made someone think they felt better a month in but wrecked another body-part long term. But it seems their reaction to that has been a focus on ensuring they 1. rewrite what PEM is, and 2. ensure that studies are even more filled with all the obvious problematic flaws other studies in other areas wouldn't be allowed to have due to the huge bias of unblinded subjective studies along with ensuring measures are short-term and no long term follow-up or independent monitoring of harm/getting worse (again you'd need good controls for that too).

It's the most cruel thing when anyone who isn't callous puts a bit of time into thinking about it because they can put themselves in the ill people's shoes when they did everything they were told and then were left destroyed and on a scrapheap as if 'it should work so the fact you were broken by it means you are to blame' so not even any acknowedgement or accountability but then being disappeared with cruelty encouraging people to not show their face for being iller.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom