Nightsong
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Humans, in general, are great at describing how they feel, but they're terrible at reliably assigning causation. I see no more reason to give any more credence on that to a believer in Sarno's drivel than to an advocate of homeopathy, crystals, faith healing, reiki, or ceremonies involving tree frogs. Levinovitz could find adherents of all of those, and write similarly about them, but I suspect the average WIRED reader would not take him quite as seriously if he did.
Levinovitz's experts are quite correct: many of the "biomedical" claims that have historically been made about LC & ME/CFS do not stand up to serious scrutiny, as we have discussed at length on S4ME over the years. As anyone with any relevant background can attest - until recent times and with a few particular exceptions - it has been all too often the province of third-raters and marginal academics with niche ideas. What he fails to acknowledge is that the problems associated with psychobehaviouralism are just as severe, if not more so, and unlike the problems with biomedical research they are pervasive and field-wide.
Psychosomatics does not attract serious scientific minds; indeed, it seems to disproportionately attract those who enjoy piling calumnies on patients, speculating adversely about their personalities, attempting to associate them en bloc with criminality, and framing even the most tame of entirely legitimate critiques as abusive. Their actions account in no small part for why patients are so frequently mistreated by the medical profession.
I have little time for the argument that people somehow cannot talk about these modalities. There is oodles of material out there promoting them: advertisements, Facebook groups, sympathetic published articles, monetised YouTube channels & so forth. And, for that matter, lengthy articles in WIRED claiming that they can't talk about them.
So-called "mind-body" interventions are very close indeed to what the NHS's psychobehavioural clinics have done for decades on end, with no results to speak of save for accumulating aggrieved patients. What the psychobehaviouralists object to is that they are no longer able to dominate the debate as they once did; the Internet has democratised it.
As someone who has spent their days & nights for many years in severe pain; as someone (to crib a line from the Rubaiyyat) whose leaves of life are falling one by one, I can muster very little sympathy for this indulgence of pseudoscience.
Levinovitz's experts are quite correct: many of the "biomedical" claims that have historically been made about LC & ME/CFS do not stand up to serious scrutiny, as we have discussed at length on S4ME over the years. As anyone with any relevant background can attest - until recent times and with a few particular exceptions - it has been all too often the province of third-raters and marginal academics with niche ideas. What he fails to acknowledge is that the problems associated with psychobehaviouralism are just as severe, if not more so, and unlike the problems with biomedical research they are pervasive and field-wide.
Psychosomatics does not attract serious scientific minds; indeed, it seems to disproportionately attract those who enjoy piling calumnies on patients, speculating adversely about their personalities, attempting to associate them en bloc with criminality, and framing even the most tame of entirely legitimate critiques as abusive. Their actions account in no small part for why patients are so frequently mistreated by the medical profession.
I have little time for the argument that people somehow cannot talk about these modalities. There is oodles of material out there promoting them: advertisements, Facebook groups, sympathetic published articles, monetised YouTube channels & so forth. And, for that matter, lengthy articles in WIRED claiming that they can't talk about them.
So-called "mind-body" interventions are very close indeed to what the NHS's psychobehavioural clinics have done for decades on end, with no results to speak of save for accumulating aggrieved patients. What the psychobehaviouralists object to is that they are no longer able to dominate the debate as they once did; the Internet has democratised it.
As someone who has spent their days & nights for many years in severe pain; as someone (to crib a line from the Rubaiyyat) whose leaves of life are falling one by one, I can muster very little sympathy for this indulgence of pseudoscience.
Last edited: