Petition: Per Fink Should Not Spread Lies about ME at Columbia University!

This isn't free speech. He's giving clinical advice in a professional forum that is objectively wrong, similar to AIDS denial or antivax.

He's not giving a speech or doing a comedy skit. He's an authoritative figure presenting baseless claims as if they had evidence and are known to be directly harmful.

They won't honor it anyway, this is the right conference for his delusions. It's more about making a statement on public record that we know he is making objectively wrong claims in an academic setting where they should not better.

 

Henrik Vogt joins the debate. It is frustrating that he still believes this is just about having different opinions..
https://twitter.com/user/status/1048592618060435456

 

Thanks @Kalliope for posting.
I was able to put out a Call to Action on Millions Missing Canada.

 

How do these events go? Will Fink talk about the great results he's had with CBT and how these support a BPS model? The words placebo and bias will of course not be heard during the talk.

 

I think I dreamed I was at this conference...

 

A tweet of Katrina' s predicament and Per Finks role?

 

Agreed. Better to criticize than silence.

"extremism" LOL. Direct action (asking for deplatforming) is not extremism. (serious violence is extremism)

 

If free speech is extremism then he is in the wrong business.
He is breaking no law by telling lies and we have the right to petition an institution to not host lies.

By his logic if anyone in authority has something to say or wants to harm people then public opposition it is essentially unethical. Thats how fascism thinks.

 

I would also hesitate about the petition if the event was a purely academic exchange of ideas between peers (as conferences usually are), but this event is explicitly aimed at providing training for people who work in health care. Such as: "physicians of diverse specialties, nurses, psychologists, social workers, research scientists, creative arts therapists, physical therapists, etc." (from program website). Those who attend can receive up to 13 continuing education credits that are recognized by New York state. Speakers give talks that are presented as overviews of recent research. The speakers are not on panels and while I'm sure an audience member could challenge a speaker, the event is not set up in a way that would give the audience equal standing to presenters ( as would a professional conference, where a speaker might expect to have their research challenged) during the Q&A by someone with comparable credentials). This to me is an important distinction.

 

It's interesting that about half of the faculty connected to this conference (several from Germany) seem to specialize in "Psychosomatic Medicine."

Apparently the term "psychosomatic" is so loaded that the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology (ABPN) no longer offers board certification in "Psychosomatic Medicine." The name of the certification was changed on 1/1/18 to "Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry."

Previously "Psychosomatic Medicine," had been defined as "the psychiatry of the medically ill." In effect, these were psychiatrists who were brought in to consult on psychiatric problems brought on by physical illness. This could include evaluating psychiatric problems like depression arising in cancer patients, psychiatric manifestations of late stage AIDS, post-partum depression/psychosis, stroke and psychiatric issues related to organ transplantation.

The specialty of "Psychosomatic Medicine," at least in the US, was apparently not about symptoms in the absence of medical findings.

Never-the-less, it appears that the ABPN decided that the term "psychosomatic" was too misleading, so they opted for the arguably more accurate term "Consultation-Liaison Psychiatry."

I don't imagine that conferences like this are going to be very helpful in clearing up that confusion.

https://www.abpn.com/become-certified/taking-a-subspecialty-exam/psychosomatic-medicine/

 

NY state officially recognizes ME as a physical disease, they released guidance that was sent to all docs was it earlier this year? Is there an authority who can accept a complaint that they are giving credits for something that goes against settled state policy?

 

Good question. This is what the website says about CE credit: The Bureau of Psychiatric Services & Research Institute Support (BPSRIS) is accredited by the Medical Society of the State of New York (MSSNY) to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The Bureau of Psychiatric Services & Research Institute Support (BPSRIS) designates this live activity for a maximum of 13.5 AMA PRA Category 1 Credits™ . Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity.

There's also a disclosure statement:
The Bureau of Psychiatric Services & Research Institute Support relies upon planners and faculty participants to provide educational information that is objective and free of bias. In this spirit & in accordance with BPSRIS/MSSNY guidelines, all speakers & planners must disclose relevant financial relationships with commercial interests whose products, devices or services may be discussed in the CME content or may be perceived as a real or apparent conflict of interest.

So I'd guess that one could complain to BPSRIS/MSSNY, possibly on the grounds that what's being presented isn't objective or unbiased.

 

Interesting, thanks for looking this up.
Under these guidelines they should be able to spew this crap, but if an anti vaxxer tried to provide CME credits would the state of NY have a problem with it?

 

I really don't know but it seems legit to make noise about it. Energy permitting, I'll do some more looking up later

 

I would (if i had the energy )

 

So the MSSNY is in turn accredited by the national group, Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education. And I found through their website that the public can file complaints about the content of courses for CME. There is a content standard for courses:
Accredited providers are responsible for validating the clinical content of CME activities that they provide. Specifically,

1. All the recommendations involving clinical medicine in a CME activity must be based on evidence that is accepted within the profession of medicine as adequate justification for their indications and contraindications in the care of patients.
2. All scientific research referred to, reported, or used in CME in support or justification of a patient care recommendation must conform to the generally accepted standards of experimental design, data collection and analysis.
3. Providers are not eligible for ACCME accreditation or reaccreditation if they present activities that promote recommendations, treatment, or manners of practicing medicine that are not within the definition of CME, or known to have risks or dangers that outweigh the benefits or known to be ineffective in the treatment of patients. An organization whose program of CME is devoted to advocacy of unscientific modalities of diagnosis or therapy is not eligible to apply for ACCME accreditation.

So that's interesting.

 

Very nice
Is anyone willing to take this on?
@Webdog does stuff like this but is probably swamped

 

Yeah the Kaiser Permanente changes and some family stuff are keeping me busy right now.

The New York State Department of Health website addresses this:

https://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/conditions/me-cfs/

Also, the Workwell Foundation letter opposing GET:

http://www.workwellfoundation.org/w...T-Letter-to-Health-Care-Providers-v4-30-2.pdf

I will note that the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education has an active Twitter account. You guys know what to do.

https://twitter.com/AccreditedCME

 

I completely understand
I think what we need are teams that can do this, when a new issue is discovered then contact and educate them

Very nice reference material
Is this thread something @dave30th might be interested in writing an article about?

I don't twitter but many forum members do