'Recovery Is Possible: Lessons in ‘ME/CFS’ Recovery from YouTube [Goldsmiths]

We should come up with a catchy but accurate term for these people.

It should signal that they make money from believing in their own courses and techniques.

My first thought was "recovery entrepreneur" or "recovery course entrepreneur". But that doesn't sound negative enough, at least to some people.

"Recover course salesperson", maybe?

"A report about recover course salespeople, form the video-channel of a recovery course salesperson".

It's alright, but not really as short and catchy as I would like.

I think most people on this forum would agree with something with "scammer" or similar, but I think that sound too much as name-calling to outsiders.
Loopy brained

Obsessed with the idea of brains being stuck in a feedback loop resulting in a lack of progress and inability to move on. And apparently immune to irony!

It was the mysterious poster who signed up as “Mr Magee” who told us they were going to be working with Garner and had found his thread here. They fulfilled all the usual criteria - long posts saying little, asking us to “do better” saying it’s unthinkably unkind to make mean comments about a person we don’t know.

They then moved on to telling us most of Garner’s friends are women, they feel sorry for us as there was something coming out this year which was going to cause us to have some kind of realisation we were wrong and we wouldn’t be able to cope. Possibly we would implode, mentally, it seemed.

Presumably, they were referring to the numerous items which all say the same stock phrases and disorder representation of reality (Wired article, Recovery Channel website, this “paper”)
who knows what other delights we can expect?

A Halloween themed zombie-brain film about brain training?tagline It’s not scary, the real fear is fear itself, the real zombies are scientists!

Yet more interminable screeds from new posters, who cannot accept we don’t agree with brain training?

A BBC adaptation of A Christmas Carol where Scrooge prevents Bob Cratchit from curing his ME/CFS, until he’s visited by three ghosts and happily hands over all his gold coins to Bob (end scene a loopy-brain dives into a room of gold coins like Scrooge Mc Duck)
 
Last edited:
I agree this isn't a science project but rather a humanities/cultural effort. It's more a project about "narrative" and story-telling and how people create meaning for themselves than it is about scientific reality.
But there is no scientific reality, David, just reality. And science is just a set of descriptions that are good enough to rely on for describing (predicting) the next time around. If this is an exercise in how people create meaning for themselves, presumably to be taken as indicative of how they are likely to do it next time around, then it is worse than incompetent. Unless of course one takes it as a narrative about how grifters grift. Hiding behind 'narrative' seems to me the epitome of bogus academia.
 
@Andy, very good.

Of course they leave out the bit about the many who don't recover and are banned from their groups and not allowed to tell their story on any of their websites.

It's marketing. No washing powder company fills their advertising customer reviews with the people who stopped using their product because it didnt work or made them itch or their clothes to shrink or disintegrate. They fill them with testimonials from satisfied customers, real or fictitious.

No university would post on their website a research paper based entirely on such a website that took the soap company testimonials seriously and concluded BrandX washing powder is the answer to all washing problems, and follow it with a press release lauding Brand X as proven by their university to be the answer to life the universe and everything in the ME/CFS universe.

Oh wait, Goldsmiths just did.
Like the Recover Norway people who never did publish my recovery story. It involved lots of medicine and objective stuff. Surprise surprise it didn't to my knowledge get included and they never contacted me......
 
One of the most annoying part of this narrative is that even if you take the absolute more restrictive definitions and prognosis, much of which is biased by several factors, especially delaying diagnoses for so long that most recoveries will have occurred by then, recovery rates had mostly settled on about 5%.

The data were lousy, but the best overall data on prevalence and prognosis were basically about 0.5%, i.e. tens of millions, and about a 5% recovery rate.

5% is not zero. 5% of tens of millions is actually a metric ton of people, when thinking in absolutes. Literally millions when taking into account the fact that tens of millions/0.5% is at any one time, and it adds up to hundreds of millions over the last century. There was never, ever, any narrative or assertion that recovery was not possible. No one with a nanogram of honesty would pretend that what anyone had ever meant by the simple fact that no effective treatments existed meant that those recoveries were spontaneous, unexplained. A fact that has been massively strengthened by Long Covid, which follows similar patterns, which yet again have been abused to retroattribute recoveries to some bullshit treatment or another.

It's just how offensive the lies are. How in-our-faces insulting they are, saying absurd things they know to be false just because no one else cares about the blatant contradictions. Very similar to the hand-waving of PACE changing their definition so that a % were 'recovered' by that definition somehow meaning that they were considered truly recovered, rather than the fact that their definition of it was obviously nonsense and fraudulent for having been moved this way.

Because the narrative when it comes to experts, especially scientists, is that facts matter. If an expert argue something and you point out that they are wrong, they are supposed to accept and adapt. And yet here we still are with this damn nonsense. It turns out they are just like anyone else, as susceptible to vibes and fashionable myths as anyone else.
 
I wish this lot would recover from their obsession with make-believe cures.
Nail on head by Dr Tuller as usual.
Urgh I am so over this narrative that patient voice is oppressed and the medical biological establishment don't want people to recover (for reasons unknown. Surely there would be some villainous intent?usually we’d blame Big Pharma here but obviously there’s no pharma for us, so what’s the motivation?) anyway, BioMedicalBaddies (played by the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?)suppress the plucky ‘umble ever so hard-done-to recovered brain trainers (played by Dickens characters such as Oliver Twist and Bob Cratchett).
 
Last edited:
Urgh I am so over this narrative that patient voice is oppressed and the medical biological establishment don't want people to recover (for reasons unknown. Surely there would be some villainous intent?usually we’d blame Big Pharma here but obviously there’s no pharma for us, so what’s the motivation?) anyway, BioMedicalBaddies (played by the Child Catcher from Chitty Chitty Bang Bang?)suppress the plucky ‘umble ever so hard-done-to recovered brain trainers (played by Dickens characters such as Oliver Twist and Bob Cratchett).
Alan Levinovitz's Wired article might be a decent place to get an idea of what they think the motivation might be:
Surveys show that “proving the realness” of long Covid is a top priority for sufferers—understandably, when newspapers run headlines claiming it’s fake. As long as clinicians, insurance companies, and the general public are dismissing people like Larson, even entertaining the plausibility of mind-body interventions can seem irresponsible and dangerous.
The dismissive phrase “all in your head,” for example, implies that if symptoms have a psychological cause, they are “fake.” That logic leads to the conclusion that legitimizing long Covid, or any medical condition, as “real” requires establishing a “biological” causal nexus and removing any element of psychology, behavior, or belief.
Right now, however, it’s impossible for the scientific community to investigate this possibility impartially. And the fault does not lie with advocates but with our culture. Andrew Larson’s fear of losing his disability insurance arises from the need to prove his illness is “real”—which, from the company’s perspective, means an illness that can’t be addressed with brain retraining. Nor is losing insurance the worst that patients can face. One prominent advocate and long Covid sufferer I spoke with, who requested anonymity to discuss her family openly, was placed under investigation by social services when her daughter also came down with long Covid. Authorities assumed psychological factors were behind the mother’s condition, and that she might be causing her daughter’s illness through a kind of Munchausen by proxy.

As I finished writing this, I received an impassioned plea from this advocate, born of the nightmare she’d undergone: “My final words for people that open the door and speculate that emotional and mental factors are part of our illness … is that this overtly has deeply negative consequences for patients and families,” she wrote. “In assigning agency to the individual or family unit, this also transfers to accusations of direct risk, abuse, and blame onto people who are themselves severely ill.”

This is the real climate of fear that needs to be addressed. Fear of being labeled lazy and crazy. Fear of losing disability insurance. Fear of being blamed for your own suffering. Fear of having your children taken away. As long as people suffering from long Covid fear these possibilities, advocates will be forced to insist on an exclusively “biological” origin of their suffering. Scientists will remain constrained by the false binaries of body or mind, real or fake. And we know what happens then: Nobody ever gets better.

The suggestion basically seems to be that people with long COVID are scared of people thinking that their illness is not "real", for reasons such as to not be labeled as "crazy", because it's easier to get disability insurance with a "real" illness, or because if a child has a "psychological" illness, there's more risk of the parent being blamed. I guess they would say that people with long COVID don't want people to recover from psychological therapies because of fear that it would help legitimize those theories.

For the "fear of having your children taken away" part: There are millions of people with long COVID. I can't currently recall ever hearing about parents that have kids with long COVID being afraid of their children being taken away because the child's illness could be psychosomatic. I'd be surprised if this was a significant issue in the world. Why is this not a huge issue for parents that have kids with depression?

I'd also be curious to hear why they think people with ME/CFS and long COVID feel such a strong need to prove their illness is "real", but there's nothing like that for people with depression, anxiety, OCD, etc. Why is it a unique need to not be labeled as crazy for people with long COVID?

My theory is that the disparity between ME/CFS and the classic "psychiatric" conditions, in terms of patient pushback on the "psychosomatic" frameworks, is mainly related to post-exertional malaise.

Doctors recommend exercise and therapy to people with depression, and even if the benefit from these interventions might be small to non-existent, it might not be that big a deal for a depression patient to just put up with it. But when the system is doing the same thing to people with ME/CFS, the patients can't just accept being told they need to try all these treatments, because there's an added harm. The "treatments" themselves are making patients sicker, so they have no choice but to push back against the bad science being used to justify these recommendations.

Edit: added author and link for article. Edit 2: fixed author name
 
Last edited:
If I wanted to take their side in the debate for a moment for why patients are "activists" against psychosomatic theories, I think this would be a better argument:

Start from the premise that I gave above: patients are harmed by exertion and so they need to ensure that pointless treatments are not being forced on them. And then follow with something like either:

1) the fear of PEM is so strong that they won't even consider trying treatments for which there is evidence of benefit, or​
2) they are simply uninformed and don't realize that there is strong evidence that these treatments are beneficial.​

My response to 1 might be: I could maybe actually see this being the case if a treatment worked but only had a tiny chance of increasing function, and only then by a small amount. But it's a risk benefit calculation, not an irrational fear. If a psychosomatic treatment legitimately made a large portion of patients recover, I doubt patients would be greatly reluctant to try it.

For 2: They need to do a better job of demonstrating that there's a real effect if they strongly believe this is the case, as the published trials to date haven't done the job.
 
For the "fear of having your children taken away" part: There are millions of people with long COVID. I can't currently recall ever hearing about parents that have kids with long COVID being afraid of their children being taken away because the child's illness could be psychosomatic. I'd be surprised if this was a significant issue in the world. Why is this not a huge issue for parents that have kids with depression?
From Long Covid Kids website

 
Interesting, thanks. So maybe there are some parents being accused of child abuse because authorities think long COVID isn't real. But it's still hard to understand why this would play a significant role in pushback against psychosomatic theories for long COVID but not classic psychiatric conditions.

If a child is extremely depressed and not participating in any activities, or if a child has OCD and is touching a light switch over and over hundreds of times a day, wouldn't that have just as much potential to lead to accusations of parents doing some sort of "abuse" that led to their child acting this way? Maybe those accusations do happen. But the point is, that this doesn't seem to be leading to any comparable pushback against "psychosomatic" theories of depression or OCD.
 
The ipaper report 16/5/2024, by Jessica Rawnsley

'It's destroyed us': parents of children with long Covid accused of making it up'

Archive copy: https://archive.ph/uteNK

'Parents of children with long Covid claim they have been accused of faking or exaggerating their child’s illness, leading to social services’ involvement and, in some instances, court cases and the threat of the child’s removal from the home.

Doctors struggle to diagnose the condition due to its complex range of symptoms and often treat it as a psychological rather than physical disease, with parents telling i they have been accused of child abuse and of fabricating the illness as a result.

Experts have compared the situation to the way professionals have previously dismissed ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis), an almost identical disease in terms of the variety of debilitating symptoms and lack of universal diagnosis or treatment. ME is a complex neurological disorder that causes symptoms such as chronic pain and exhaustion and, in very severe cases, can be fatal.

One in five parents of children with ME are referred to social services, according to Tymes Trust, an ME charity. Families and doctors warn this is now increasingly occurring with long Covid.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show an estimated 62,000 children aged two to 16 years have reported suffering from long Covid.'

'But parents have told i that when they have sought a diagnosis from their GP, or cited it as a reason for their children missing school, they have been accused of FII (fabricated or induced illness) – a form of child abuse in which a parent exaggerates or causes their child’s illness.

One mother, Lorraine Rowley, who has cerebral palsy, said she was referred to social services after her daughter, Ruby, then aged 12, contracted Covid in March 2020.'

'“The consultant started saying that because I’m already in a wheelchair ‘maybe [she] wants to be disabled like her mum.’”

'Ruby was diagnosed with functional neurological disorder (FND), previously known as hysteria, and her family was reported to social services under suspicion of FII.

“[The local consultant] said: ‘This child is in danger, we need to get her out of the home,’ and that we were harming our Ruby and wanted her to be disabled,” says Ms Rowley, 46. “When she kept saying she was in pain, they said, ‘You’re not in pain, you don’t need pain relief.'”


.... 'Part of the reason families become ensnared in the FII net is that the definition was expanded in 2017 to include ‘medically unexplained symptoms’ and ‘perplexing presentations’ – which can be common in long Covid cases. Children’s charity Cerebra found FII safeguarding referrals were increasing, with 75 per cent of councils having investigated a case in the past three years.

“There is a cultural problem that is ingrained within medicine to not believe patients if we can’t explain their symptoms,” says Dr Binita Kane, a consultant physician who set up a private long Covid clinic.

“You’re almost programmed to think that if you can’t explain it, it must be psychological. The patient must be making it up or mum’s somehow invested in this child being ill. It’s pretty appalling.”

.
 
Alan Levinovitz's Wired article might be a decent place to get an idea of what they think the motivation might be:




The suggestion basically seems to be that people with long COVID are scared of people thinking that their illness is not "real", for reasons such as to not be labeled as "crazy", because it's easier to get disability insurance with a "real" illness, or because if a child has a "psychological" illness, there's more risk of the parent being blamed. I guess they would say that people with long COVID don't want people to recover from psychological therapies because of fear that it would help legitimize those theories.

For the "fear of having your children taken away" part: There are millions of people with long COVID. I can't currently recall ever hearing about parents that have kids with long COVID being afraid of their children being taken away because the child's illness could be psychosomatic. I'd be surprised if this was a significant issue in the world. Why is this not a huge issue for parents that have kids with depression?

I'd also be curious to hear why they think people with ME/CFS and long COVID feel such a strong need to prove their illness is "real", but there's nothing like that for people with depression, anxiety, OCD, etc. Why is it a unique need to not be labeled as crazy for people with long COVID?

My theory is that the disparity between ME/CFS and the classic "psychiatric" conditions, in terms of patient pushback on the "psychosomatic" frameworks, is mainly related to post-exertional malaise.

Doctors recommend exercise and therapy to people with depression, and even if the benefit from these interventions might be small to non-existent, it might not be that big a deal for a depression patient to just put up with it. But when the system is doing the same thing to people with ME/CFS, the patients can't just accept being told they need to try all these treatments, because there's an added harm. The "treatments" themselves are making patients sicker, so they have no choice but to push back against the bad science being used to justify these recommendations.

Edit: added author and link for article. Edit 2: fixed author name
Oh sorry it was a rhetorical questions and I am more than familiar with both the article, the thread on it and him posting, the contrarian who won’t discuss his article and complains “is that all you’ve got?” when nobody is around at 3am when he’s turned up wanting to go on at people about (not his article) things related to his article.
 
The ipaper report 16/5/2024, by Jessica Rawnsley

'It's destroyed us': parents of children with long Covid accused of making it up'

Archive copy: https://archive.ph/uteNK

'Parents of children with long Covid claim they have been accused of faking or exaggerating their child’s illness, leading to social services’ involvement and, in some instances, court cases and the threat of the child’s removal from the home.

Doctors struggle to diagnose the condition due to its complex range of symptoms and often treat it as a psychological rather than physical disease, with parents telling i they have been accused of child abuse and of fabricating the illness as a result.

Experts have compared the situation to the way professionals have previously dismissed ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis), an almost identical disease in terms of the variety of debilitating symptoms and lack of universal diagnosis or treatment. ME is a complex neurological disorder that causes symptoms such as chronic pain and exhaustion and, in very severe cases, can be fatal.

One in five parents of children with ME are referred to social services, according to Tymes Trust, an ME charity. Families and doctors warn this is now increasingly occurring with long Covid.

Figures from the Office for National Statistics show an estimated 62,000 children aged two to 16 years have reported suffering from long Covid.'

'But parents have told i that when they have sought a diagnosis from their GP, or cited it as a reason for their children missing school, they have been accused of FII (fabricated or induced illness) – a form of child abuse in which a parent exaggerates or causes their child’s illness.

One mother, Lorraine Rowley, who has cerebral palsy, said she was referred to social services after her daughter, Ruby, then aged 12, contracted Covid in March 2020.'

'“The consultant started saying that because I’m already in a wheelchair ‘maybe [she] wants to be disabled like her mum.’”

'Ruby was diagnosed with functional neurological disorder (FND), previously known as hysteria, and her family was reported to social services under suspicion of FII.

“[The local consultant] said: ‘This child is in danger, we need to get her out of the home,’ and that we were harming our Ruby and wanted her to be disabled,” says Ms Rowley, 46. “When she kept saying she was in pain, they said, ‘You’re not in pain, you don’t need pain relief.'”


.... 'Part of the reason families become ensnared in the FII net is that the definition was expanded in 2017 to include ‘medically unexplained symptoms’ and ‘perplexing presentations’ – which can be common in long Covid cases. Children’s charity Cerebra found FII safeguarding referrals were increasing, with 75 per cent of councils having investigated a case in the past three years.

“There is a cultural problem that is ingrained within medicine to not believe patients if we can’t explain their symptoms,” says Dr Binita Kane, a consultant physician who set up a private long Covid clinic.

“You’re almost programmed to think that if you can’t explain it, it must be psychological. The patient must be making it up or mum’s somehow invested in this child being ill. It’s pretty appalling.”

.
Yes, I think LC suffers from the same weird cognitive dissonance as ME, which is

It is real and does exist. That’s not what this patient has though.

My guess is the combination of patient being very ill and nothing helping, and the illness going for a long time at a level that’s severe enough that medics are involved, leads to some medics starting to project the issue on to the caregivers, to cast about looking for psychological reasons.

They do believe LC and ME are “real” they just don’t understand what they look like in clinical practice. They don’t understand that nothing will really work. They don’t understand how to deal with no improvement. They don’t have experience of treating people with these diseases long-term. They don’t have specific LC ME consultants who oversee, advise, guide etc.

Imagine if we knew nothing of how MS works, if it couldn't be “seen” on scans or tests, if it was treated as ME or LC is. Kids ending up needing wheelchairs or walkers (but not all, just some) Drs saying “ we know MS is real” but growing frustrated that you’re not using your arm properly any more despite physio and CBT.
 
Last edited:
Well done on this, I thought it was very good.

One point which I think is important for random people reading it:
“About two-thirds of the subjects reported full recovery”

Was the term “full recovery” used? I haven’t read the report but recall someone quoting the definition of recovery used and it was wishy-washy and I don’t think it suggested participants had to claim full recovery.
 
I haven’t read the report but recall someone quoting the definition of recovery used and it was wishy-washy and I don’t think it suggested participants had to claim full recovery.
Good point, Bobbler found this passage:
 
Back
Top Bottom