Tom Ingman (Research Student) - Chalders protege? bPS Nextgen

[rvallee]

Well, when I said something like this to a psychiatrist he told me my subconscious did not want to work

I don't really understand why it's OK for physicians to be casually insulting. I'm sure that psychiatrist did not understand how incredibly insulting statements like that are. In addition to being lazy. Like an engineer trying to explain why the machine they inspected failed by just shrugging and saying "I dunno, maybe a meteorite hit it or something, or a giant stomped on it, who cares?".

 

[bobbler]

It's noticable that he used the Oxford criteria for selection of patients. With the expansion of IAPT and the fact that it seems beloved by all political parties in the UK, I expect he thinks he will have a long and lucrative career, working on CBT (and GET) for 'medically unexplained symptoms'.

I anticipate that as more and more evidence mounts for the problems of post exertional malaise and a broken energy system in ME patients, the BPS crowd may begin to seperate 'ME with PEM' from CFS (Oxford criteria). I think we have already seen some papers where they seem to be laying the groundwork for this. Then they won't have to deal with those annoying ME patients who keep challenging and critiquing their work - but they will be left with a big pool of patients with 'medically unexplained fatigue' who they can continue to 'work with' in relative 'peace'.

Agree - which is why ForwardME have an important job to do of ensuring that 'exclusion of ME' is made an absolute requirement before anyone is referred to their various 'fatigue/PPS' type programmes. This is a safety issue and should be billed as that and put under the heading 'duty of care' - and I would suggest double-required in that the clinics themselves (PPS ones) should have to do scanning for PEM on a regular basis (given its hard to spot when you can't pace) as well as the GP doing so.

It is also a numbers issue - these guys are trying to claim this whatever it is non-PEM CFS thing is both best-treated by them and their off-the-shelf treatments in their already existing clinics, but also that they have the numbers to justify their funding. They aren't going to be keen when in a bums-on-seats situation to 'exclude' anyone until they've had their 1st session or whatever it is that unlocks the funding for 'the course', so someone else needs to be doing that before they get there to make sure people are categorised correctly.

I have good reason to suspect they are banking on status quo of 'what's there vs what is yet to be built' wagging the dog on diagnosis. Particularly when combined with education of GPs and pathway directions to GPs being influenced by those with conflicts of interest. And of course sales claims by IAPTs of 'saves money at any price' by claiming those with MUS cos a fortune.

I don't know how they justify being open given they now confirm they aren't for ME/CFS and yet their evidence isn't for other conditions 'apparently' is based on the non-research (due to quality issues and criteria issues) into that isn't it?