United Kingdom: Dr Suzanne O’Sullivan (BPS neurologist)

Not a dualist, though. Damn those dualists, always separating mental and physical and whatnot.

 

Not only do they agree but many absolutely agree with her and with each other. They must all consider that they have appreciation of matters sufficient to absolutely endorse her, otherwise how would they know just how perfect the book is? Deluded. Fancy a critique on Amazon? Don't read the book, don't criticise it. Just critique any endorsements telling you how great it is, all you need to know etc. endorsing not only the book but their own pre-existing opinions which the book endorse in turn.

 

I think she later admitted that the one patient she mentioned didn't actually exist and was just an amalgam of ME/CFS patients she had seen. Which was very dishonest of her.

 

Often MUPS are simply labelled as psychosomatic because currently medicine cannot explain them imo.

 

But if they now take a scythe to an overgrown beanstalk of mental illness and sneak in ME, Chronic Lyme etc, they can take a scythe to that too! Two birds one stone. Still dangerous adversaries.

 

Yes, see, there is real, then there is "real", there is also Real, and of course real (winky face), but also Real (serious pouty face). Then of course we can't forget about really real, Real for real, and then there's rEaL. All of which is real. But now this is Really real real for real.

I do love those reveals. There are so many. "We used to tell those people their symptoms are real, but it turns out they may be Really real for real, but don't let anyone suggest that 'real' psychological symptoms are any less rEaL, which they aren't, well, they are, just in a different sense, where we are careful not to separate the mind and the body, which separately influence each another, but are also one and the same, whatever is more convenient at any moment, not a dualist, you're the dualist".

And let's be real, well, Real, here, all of this continues for the same reason as most absurd belief systems: those beliefs are too absurd, too mediocre, to admit to having been fooled. The exact same problem exists in the conspiracy fantasy communities, where showing people they are wrong only makes them dig further in, precisely because it's as gullible as falling for the wallet inspector. Again.

 

Oh, I don’t have a need to explain everything. I already know how to do that!

 

This is literally as delusional as insisting that the sky is gone, pointing at the blue expanse of the sky screaming: "see? see! it's gone! the sky used to be right there and the whole thing is gone!".

The fact that Long Covid was initially, predictably, dismissed as variously psychosomatic or not existing, a fact that still largely remains true, is exactly as clownish as people believing that the basement of a pizzeria is used by global (by which they mean Jewish) elites to run a pedophile ring, even though the pizzeria literally doesn't have a basement.

The specifics of the delusion are different, but both are delusional fantasies with zero connection to reality and even less interest in adhering to facts or making sense. Not making sense is literally the point in conspiracy fantasies, and the arguments she makes neatly fall within the usual script. And they are always, ALWAYS, the underdog, sabotaged from within by the Deep State, even when they have total control of everything. Half of all health care budgets could be dedicated to psychosomatic clinics and they'd still complain about not getting a fair attempt to prove themselves.

This is a marketing plan. You do not need to market the existence of things that work. They just work. It's the fact that they don't work that they have to sell the whole thing. You will likely have to convince a few people about things that don't work, and here they reveal that they understand that the whole thing is a cheap house of cards, but that they still want to sell it because it makes them feel special, as if they have special knowledge about secret things that no one else understands.

Although I will say that I really like that she is putting out the message about how 'functional' means psychosomatic. Which reveals that the profession has a very loose connection to ethics and legal responsibilities to tell the truth. About the only basis of disagreement has always been how to market the thing, never its substance, or concerns with the fact that it's a total fantasy that has destroyed millions of lives.

 

“[The media] presented long Covid as an unequivocal pathological result of a viral infection. [A psychosomatic] cause wasn’t even touched on."

This obvious untruth alone ought to get her laughed out of any serious discussion. But instead she does the rounds of podcasts and promotional interviews, because facts are just optional extras.

 

It’s basically making sure you dress up in clothes that aren’t too expensive/seem Everyman enough and driving a normal car when you are ‘on the job’ then thinking you are kidding /distracting everyone (whilst you get paid for your appearance) for inferring the other side is wrong and are just money-making so they don’t look at you because you wouldn’t be calling out of it were the other way round etc

what I couldn’t fully get is whether this neurologist (or ex - does she still work? What’s the term for it if not?) who is now an author of pop-books on how everything is psychosomatic

is saying that the ‘doing it for the money’ are the ones diagnosing the psychosomatic or the ones who aren’t and are checking there isn’t a treatable medical issue - because there have been a few of these where literal reading of the words it says the former when knowing her I assume the latter, but her spiel now seems to be warping to ‘no diagnoses of any kind, even if it’s a label that keeps them out of the system like functional , it’s all just to make money and no one has anything’ type feel to it

it’s like she is getting direction from other people and minds are being changed quickly or wires are getting crossed. But she’s clearly had a heavy circuit of these recently so I guess you get exhausted by the umpteenth interview

Or maybe that could be that these are in different countries that the messages are different- I haven’t analysed/cross-checked ?

 

Marketing yes.

But marketing is about finding a problem for which your solution fits the target consumer better than others on offer

so of course step 1. Is her telling a bunch of people what their problem is so they’ll ‘buy’ her solution

except her book doesn’t solve anything , and I’m not about to read the gaping fiction of it so I’m not sure the intention is to even pretend to help more a manifesto of we are not intended to survive ? Darwinism? Or tough love ism? Or just poor us for having to put up with all this ism?

I’m trying to think back to her first fiction book I also didn’t read but she also spent a lot of time getting herself in the papers etc for

and can’t remember whether that was just ‘human zoo’ like a modern version of the bearded lady circus thing in that film with the big song or had any ‘solution’ or ‘good outcome’ for the subjects, some of whom even if fictionalised clearly had a grim situation

it’s a bit of a new angle for medicine to do a book on not really fixing people just here’s the ones we triaged out gossip if so

and yes on the marketing front if it is the case it’s cases not to be dealt with , and we have fictionalised/made up or supposedly analgamated (as are tropes) ‘persona’ profiles

then what she would actually be marketing certainly falls into the unsavoury and to me tilts into the housewife friendly niceified propaganda type box

 

This journal article listed on Twitter and archived here contains most of Suzanne's section on long Covid, where she says a lot of it has to be psychosomatic with all the faulty reasoning & assumptions that led to m.e being mistreated for decades
https://archive.ph/2025.03.23-18481...ychosomatic-basis/2Y4XIX6DA5DBXPEYCR6ZAJRTAI/

 

Link to RNZ interview.
https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/prog...e-o-sullivan-on-the-dangers-of-over-diagnosis
Kathryn Ryan the interviewer has a reputation of being sympathetic to MECFS & LC.
She challenged O’Sullivan towards the end. Kathryn ended the interview with a long “Hmmmm!” Which i translated as “I am not buying what you are selling Dr O’Sullivan”

 

I skipped to the end, and it really showcases how little thought that goes into giving a psychosomatic explanation of anything.

Ryan starts this bit by giving an example of a case she knows where a patient presented with symptoms that looked very much like a brain injury, and was successfully treated by doing what you would do with someone that had had a serious concussion.

O’Sullivan (my bolding):

I perhaps don’t think you understand what psychosomatic symptoms are. I see people that have any type of symptoms. I have convulsive seizures and paralysis and blindness and every type of symptoms can be psychosomatic. A concussion, by the way, produces some of the commonest psychosomatic symptoms there are such as feeling dizzy or lightheaded and things like that. So I don’t really see that your argument in any way… That entirely… Everything you’ve described is still consistent with psychosomatic.​

Ryan:

Hmmm…
​

Edit: I’m not sure if the patient was an LC patient or not. It doesn’t matter for the point.

 

Regarding the post above, it seems to me like O’Sullivan is possibly arguing that the psychosomatic model claims that any symptom can be psychosomatic, and consequently, the fact that a patient presents with symptoms indicates that it’s psychosomatic.