Trial By Error: CBT and Irritable Bowel Syndrome

Can anyone remember the name of the person who lives in Carol Monaghan’s constituency? Carol would be an excellent person to raise this question with Public Accounts Committee.

perhaps even @EspeMor could mention this question to Carol M at the next Forward
-ME or APPG ‘meeting’ please?

 

Seems like a perfectly rational defence to me - no-one running a medical scam would want to risk their profits by having to tell people what they're up to. They've basically pled the 5th.

 

https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/15/trial-by-error-revisiting-mahana-and-irritable-bowel-syndrome/

 

@dave30th

I don't know if you have already done this, but might it not be worth contacting the UK IBS charities to at least alert them of your investigations?

eg
https://www.theibsnetwork.org/contact/

https://gutscharity.org.uk/contact-us/

 

I haven't, no. Does anyone know anyone at those organizations?

 

Team details from about us page for the charity Guts UK (previously known as Core -

https://gutscharity.org.uk/about-us/our-team/

Edit changed wording from.contact list to team details

 

Team details for the IBS network - one of the other leading UK charities

https://www.theibsnetwork.org/about-us/

 

thanks. I'll look into it. If anyone has cross-membership and knows these groups, let me know!

 

Trial By Error: More on the Mahana Mess…

https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/25/trial-by-error-more-on-the-mahana-mess/

 

I'm wondering if economics isn't starting to play a significant role here. That the efforts to license some of this work comes because the entire premise of the BPS model is to save money, which it systematically fails at by spending resources that actually amplify the losses, and some people who have been sponsoring this are starting to demand that some of the promised savings actually make it back in some form, whatever form.

Whether in its official form within IAPT or as commercial programs, the entire premise of this approach is that it is cost-effective, that although it provides no medical benefits, at least it promises to lower total health care expenses, despite the calculations being pure fantasy of course. So far it's been nothing but expenses and zero benefits. The expenses may be rather small but this is starting to become problematic with the IAPT expansion, the numbers start adding up very quickly at this scale, and anyway given enough time even small expenses add up to quite a lot. We are 3 decades into this and at some point empty promises start to wear thin.

There is basically no justification for this licensing deal in any way that relates to health care. It is not and has nothing to do with providing health benefits to anyone. It seems to be a stop-gap attempt at showing there can be some returns on investment, a promise that has wildly over-promised while delivering absolutely nothing but failure.

 

https://www.virology.ws/2020/04/28/...-nudge-to-mahanas-gasteroenterology-advisers/

 

Is the silence to be expected, given the likely advice which might be given by "m' learned friends"?

 

It's a product, they want to churn it out and make money. That's their focus, and where they see their time and energy best spent. As long as politicians and businesses can get their hands on a "study" that meets the evidential standard of "barely plausible", that's the science box checked, they've got what they wanted from science to wave around and now it's time to make money / implement a policy. They've done all the science they need and they're not going to revisit it, they've moved on to sales and marketing now. They don't have time for some bloke on the internet harassing them about science at this stage. Please, they are trying to run a business.

 

They'll ignore DT until there's a chance of him costing them money or scuppering their plans. Why bother engaging before that? Put the letters in the file, keep an eye on it, carry on with plan A.

 

That was not the sort of matter I had in mind.

 

I don't expect to hear from anyone. But I think it puts them on notice that they will likely have problems marketing this in the way they think they want to, if they manage to get through approval processes.

 

Even if there is no response, there's no longer any deniability either. There's a nice public record of them being told quite clearly that their claims are misleading and why.

If people are harmed by this in future, even if by having their correct diagnosis delayed, then the company may well be implicated. They were warned, publicly.

 

As silences go, this one speaks very loudly.