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

Hoopoe said:
It sounds just like what I suspected, which was that the recovery narrative is just a way to manage their emotions about their ongoing health problems.
Click to expand...
Yes, obviously we can't know whether Garner recovered fully or not. The fact that he retired from his job after his Covid infection does lend credence to the possibility that he did not recover fully.

That possibility does add another interesting aspect to his ongoing preaching. Who exactly is he trying so hard to convince?
 
MrMagoo said:
He retired in July 2022
Click to expand...
I think he was roughly 67 years old then, so certainly a reasonable time to retire. He got Covid-19 in 2020 I think.

I guess my point is just that it is easier to accommodate any forced reduction in activity if it coincides with retirement. Unless the person is posting weekly images of them scuba diving and the like, it makes it hard to know if a claim of recovery is true or just wishful thinking.

I think the increased flexibility that comes with retirement and pensions, and society's acceptance of reduced physical activity then, is a reason why rates of ME/CFS diagnosis are lower in people aged over 60 years.
 
I’ve been tentatively hating this new theory of predictive processing. That’s unfair, I’ve been hating how it may be used to bash pwME.

So, like a stopped clock Garner has proved useful only in this convergence of circumstances, in helping me confirm that I hate how this is being used to bash pwME. Thanks, I hate it.
 
UkPoster said:
To answer the first part of your post, it isn't this simple. You may well have assumed you would get better, but if we take predictive processing, the key issue is whether your brain determined you were safe or not. Multiple factors can potentially play into that decsion. Subconscious danger isn't a 'damaging idea,' it's how the brain works. We are bombarded by a huge amount of information daily - that can range from tv adverts, newspaper articles, things people share online, conversations, cars in the distance, bikes, dogs on walks, things that will relate to past (bad and good) memories. Thousands and thousands and thousands of bits of data that we can't hold in conscious awareness. Our brains make shortcuts in processing this all the time, we couldn't function without that. So your brain has one eye, essentially, on threat, in a way you aren't aware of. That is established fact. It means we can act quickly if a car veers off the road and heads towards us - we may be walking and in conversation with someone but can then spot it and act before we have time to make a conscious decision about what is happening.

None of this is about insulting you and your character, it's about the world of the brain beneath what you're aware of and it acting accordingly (i.e with a sickness response that is cleverly designed to keep you safe by getting you out of your environment for any number of reasons, including survival of your tribe)

NONE of this is being used to 'bash' people with M.E. That is pure hyperbole. It's the opposite, it's trying to HELP people understand themselves better. A key question becomes, what might have been going on in my life to trigger my brain to trigger a sickness response when my symptoms stared.
Click to expand...
This reads as a bunch of patronising memes, irrelevant analogies and unfounded assumptions. Where is the science? Where is the evidence?

Accusing someone of 'hyperbole' when criticising Garner's harmful campaign against people with ME/CFS and against the NICE guidelines is breathtakingly insulting. Please, think it possible you are wrong.

I think if anyone is going to defend Garner's views and actions, they should tell us on what basis they do so. Are you a friend of his, a colleague, a neuroscientist, a clinician, a neurologist? Do you have a role in the NHS or another organisation or private earnings related to promoting these ideas?

Garner was one of the majority of people who have short term post viral illness after infection and recover in under a year. He wrote about it during the early weeks when he was glad of the support of people with ME/CFS who helped him with pacing. From his own description, he was well on the way to recovery when he talked to a brain retraining person and was persuaded to attribute his recovery to that encounter.

He then chose to spend his retirement promoting brain retraining purely on the basis of his and some others' attribution of their recovery to brain retraining, mostly collected on line. He further chose to denigrate the help he had received with pacing, and to turn this into a campaign against sick and dying people. That is not helpful.

He is spending time on telling anyone who will listen that NICE is wrong, and that we are sick because we are told ME/CFS is permanent, neither of which is true. Where is the research evidence?

I find his behaviour unfathomably cruel and going against all his medical and evidence based science background. It's just plain wierd warching this behaviour.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom