Trial By Error: Some Thoughts on MUS and Bermingham; My Letter to Professor Payne

http://www.virology.ws/2019/07/08/t...-and-bermingham-my-letter-to-professor-payne/

 

Very alarming. Brilliantly questioned, @dave30th.

The mix of MUS, somatisation, now subtreshold levels of somatisation and the imprecise juggling of numbers are really scary. Then add the “magical” IAPT program..

Times are scary. Constructions no one actually do believe is true are made, followed by desperate measures. It is probably the result of lack of resources and the fear of how to deal with the aging population. Instead of addressing things properly, making the most out of resources, - there are established short-term solutions bypassing root causes, and not really solving anything. You’re right, the consequences are patients don’t get access to medical care and the message is: it’s not worth investing money/funding anything cause of somatisation and/or threshold levels of somatisation? What the

Really hope these people will correct the inaccurate and wrong use of numbers. Here as anywhere else in regard of ME - progress will unfortunately only be made by political actions. All trust lost in medicine in general, doctors and bureaucrats.

 

That sleight of word, head messing thing yet again. Mention two different things in the same breath then continue as if they are the same, hoping people don't spot what you've done. Unfortunately it so often works.

 

I've just spotted another instance of this misstated factoid on the Neurological Alliance's blog:

 

Thanks. I'm sure there are other instances out there as well. I'm sure most don't read the study but just pick up the mistake from previous mis-citations.

 

There really is no other way to put it but the "sub-threshold" hand-waving is completely idiotic and morally bankrupt.

Any health care system that promotes this kind of nonsense needs to be imploded and rebuilt entirely. "It is thought that" is step 1 in a 10-step process, it cannot ever be used as justification for implementing policies and a system-wide reform. This is happening in complete contempt with the scientific method and reckless disregard for the consequences.

This is criminal negligence.

 

Nice one - that was a really clear explanation of this undeniable problem. I think I find the article style blogs easier to take in than the open letters, though I only realised that when I got to the letter section of this blog and felt myself having to work harder.

By "Dawn Golder is Executive Director of FND Hope UK" - With Jon Stone, Tim Nicholson and Mark Edwards on their advisory board: https://fndhope.org/imab/

 

I can understand that. They have different goals. It's good for me to try to do a mix of both.

 

This may be classed as politics so remove it if needed.

There are people desperate to make a profit from the NHS and people ideologically opposed to socialised medicine but the British people love it. It is being sold off bit by bit - like diagnostic labs are now private companies.

When all you can get on the NHS is CBT and GET then people will be forced to go private and the NHS will be seen as not fit for purpose which will please those wanting to profit but these are also the people who are already setting up companies to deliver CBT and GET. Win, win, win for them, and lose lose lose for everyone else.

 

Exactly. They can't let the PACE trial fail or the truth about MUS and FND come out.

 

Hi I'm confused how this would work. You got CBT from this private organization rather than NHS? But NHS covers the cost?

 

You can see evidence of this principle in the recent paper that used FOI requests to discover whether fatigue clinics monitored harm from GET.

https://www.s4me.info/threads/monit...h-service-specialist-2019-hughes-et-al.10173/

A happy outcome of outsourcing, no need to comply with FOI requests!

 

My emphasis. This is the bit that has always baffled me. How can people be ideologically opposed to a system which treats (or attempts to treat) everybody who is sick? It's like someone admitting to the world that they don't care if the poor don't get medical treatment and then die as a result. It's also like admitting that the death of people who can't afford treatment or can't be profited from is convenient. If the rich can't make money out of a poor, sick person then the poor, sick person should do everyone a favour and die? And people who are ideologically opposed to socialised medicine think this is all absolutely fine and dandy and they aren't ashamed of it? Why not? What kind of people think the death of the poor and sick is just collateral damage that can be ignored?

 

This has mostly come about because of the Health and Social Care Act 2012. There was lots of opposition to it at the time, referring to it as 'the privatisation of the NHS'.

For a quick insight see:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_and_Social_Care_Act_2012

https://www.nhscc.org/ccgs/

Clinical Commissioning Groups are mostly free to commission private services over NHS ones and to respond to 'local needs'. However, in the case of IAPT, all CCGs are required to commission these services, including for LTCs! Go figure...

 

Well I could answer that, but unfortunately it would break the No Politics Rule!

 

If MUS is a psychological diagnosis, rather than medical, then the patient population experiencing the worst delays completely disappears.

If you stop counting failures, you can claim a lot of success. So MUS patients are not experiencing serious illness, instead they are experiencing serious distress.

Even Orwell would be horrified. Probably Swift as well.