The European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM)

6th Annual Scientific Conference of the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM 2018) incl. several CFS studies

https://twitter.com/user/status/1027525698280476672


via Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks

 

I wonder if anybody ever shows up at these things and puts the counter-view.

 

A pathetic collection of make-believe articles whose only purpose is to ensure employment for incompetents that couldn't make it in real medicine.

 

-I think it's important not to tar all with the same brush.
-In perusing the titles I found some that I thought looked like important, practical research into some serious problem.
-A lot have reasonable lines of inquiry but are muddled by babble.
-Unfortunately many do seem to be either pure theoretical babble or the kind of thing that would lead to oblique blaming of and imposition of psychological interventions upon people who are suffering from serious medical problems.

Maybe we need #NotAllPsychs

 

I looked at the ones where CFS was mentioned. Was not impressed.

 

The author thinks that getting patients to recall different things may lead to a clinical benefit. I am now doubting the author's sanity.

They seem to have discovered that patients have symptoms, unlike healthy people. I doubt that these results will advance our knowledge.

OD = orthostatic dysregulation. Apparently the name used in Japan for orthostatic intollerance (they mention CFS). With a lack of a control group the study isn't telling us anything about treatment so stop trying to suggest it does.

No control group, and no long term data. For all we know the patients (some of which had a CFS diagnosis) who went back to work collapsed shortly afterwards. The conclusion is not justified.

From the Per Fink group, about bodily distress disorder. They're not making any weird conclusions here, that seems to be planned for future studies. We are not really learning anything new here though. It's what you would expect to find in chronically ill people.

 

I'm with you there.

 

Can an individual (not physician / researcher) attend that conference? Or better yet, a group that can respond in some way?

I'm attending the Medical Psychiatric Alliance conference this fall and plotting.

 

I just noticed the National Center of Excellence for CFS/ME in Norway have added this conference in their overview of seminars/conferences/meetings about ME.

The upcoming ME-symposium at Stanford University is missing on their list.

They do however link to a coming seminar in Oslo for health personell about ME arranged by themselves and with themes as hypnosis and the biopsychosocial model.

(there is an ongoing petition against this center. Thread here)

 

Merged thread

Michael Sharpe about Paul Garner at the European Association of Psychosomatic Medicine (EAPM), 2021 3rd June

18 May 2021
Prof. Sharpe, Vice-president of EAPM, introduces Prof. Garner, keynote lecturer at the EAPM Virtual Conference 2021: Thu, June 3rd, 2021 at 15.45 CEST.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZjoK2ugKmhg

(comments appear to be on)

 

God help us

 

Desperate for anything that supports his crackpot theory.
And what’s with the weird headbutt at the beginning?

 

Skyline in background image really lends it that all-important scientific legitimacy. Embarrassing

 

He knew we'd all be watching.

 

Programme available here, in case anyone is interested.

https://www.eapm2021.com/program/

 

Lol

 

LOL, yes, I looked at the title of the thread and thought: "Oh god, what on earth have these two done again?"

 

Continuing to turn science on its head.

What do they tell their students? That research conclusions involving just one subject are valid to base entire treatment policies on? What kind of grade would they give such a paper?

Would these people drive a new vehicle model if it had never been tested? What about new medication? If it had never been through trials would they take it anyways? If this were safe and acceptable, pharmaceutical companies wouldn't need to spend billions testing new drugs. Just put them out there.

They likely rely on science in other areas, and probably assume that proper research has been done. Lives literally depend on good science. And yet some in psychology and psychiatry seem to get a pass on these requirements.