"Suzanne O'Sullivan's It's All in Your Head wins Wellcome Book Prize 2016"

[JaimeS]

he could just be unhappy that a women has written a book.

...ouch.

 

[JaimeS]

internists and neurologists are, because they can maintain a therapeutic alliance intact, while these patients look askance at referrals to psychiatrists and psychologists: They are convinced they are organically ill! The only treatment, really, is the gift of time, letting the patients tell, and if necessary re-tell, their stories to a clinician who nods sympathetically while not necessarily endorsing the patients’ supposed etiologies.

Wowww.

Patients strive to produce symptoms that are medically believable, that cannot be disproven, in other words. This is why the hysterical gait paralyses of the nineteenth century have largely disappeared: The Babinski test “disproved” them.

I myself have feverishly wondered if I could somehow find a way around the Babinski test.

What!? Seriously, do they think patients are THAT well-informed about what medical tests can and cannot disprove? I consider myself a relatively well-educated patient, and mostly I now know that methacholine challenge tests help prove you have a breathing issue but nothing about what/why, and that Lyme tests are notoriously unreliable. I might know the names of a lot of tests and what they test for, but I would have no idea what tests can and can't be fooled.

And isn't the whole idea of psychosomatic medicine that your body CAN fool tests? That you can run a fever or fail "the Babinski test" because your brain has somehow convinced your body that you're ill when you're not? Or am I misunderstanding the psychosomatic model, here?

Good, well thought out comment on the article @Valentijn !

Jaime

 

[Richie]

Just posted on there as 88 kacheltjes, but it's disappeared.

 

[Richie]

HAve the blog comments gone or is it my computer/browser/

 

[Valentijn]

HAve the blog comments gone or is it my computer/browser/

Not sure. A.B. had a comment earlier, but I don't see it now, just my own.

 

[JaimeS]

Not sure. A.B. had a comment earlier, but I don't see it now, just my own.

All I see is Valentjin's as well.

On the other article, though, this gem showed up:

....It is not the ‘Nervous Housewife’ syndrome (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/14196), it is the ‘I read the Nervous Housewife’ syndrome. Everyone who studies psychology is exposed to the sensational stories of the paralytic or the blind who is suddenly cured because a stern psychiatrist orders them to ‘stop this nonsense!’.

It has (I think) actually happened, for sure, once in a blue moon. But do students (especially those who harbour a desire to control others) take that fact on board?

.... It is like Peter Alliss wrote in his golf book, amateur players almost invariably pick a club based on the best shot they every played with that club. So they once, 5 years ago, they hit a 5 iron 220 yards – that’s the one they pick for that distance, notwithstanding that 90% of the time they can only get 180 yards with it. The sensationalist, the dramatist (and dare I say the narcissist), believes they are destined to do great things, dominate clients, control the sick. Rules of science (like testing an hypothesis and repeatability) do not apply to them, but a single incident related in a book makes them the king or queen of drama...

I added the breaks for readability.

-J

 

[Richie]

I can only see one comment and Valentijn's name. Odd.

 

[Mrs Sowester]

HAve the blog comments gone or is it my computer/browser/

I think he's had a cull. He was probably uncomfortable with the criticism of Shorter.

 

[JaimeS]

I think he's had a cull. He was probably uncomfortable with the criticism of Shorter.

Could be. But Shorter's stuff was blatantly condescending.

 

[Mrs Sowester]

Could be. But Shorter's stuff was blatantly condescending.

I completely agree. He sounds like a complete dinosaur, I thought his sort of views had died out by the late 70s.

The Babinski test really tickles btw...Mr Sowester just Babinskied my foot and I had fight the impulse to kick him. Not sure whether that was a pass or fail but it was funny

 

[Esther12]

There's this Wessely Shorter discussion I quoted from in a thread about the way Wessely complains about the 'all in the mind' slur:

Wessely. Professor Shorter-it is fascinating to hear you
talk on psychology, but can I take you back to history?
You said two things-first, that you have learned that the
essential way of dealing with these problems clinically is
to take them seriously, emphasize their genuine nature and
so on. That is clinical skill and clinical judgement.
But you also said that the way in which these syndromes
finally go is when the word gets out that they are
really "all in the mind" and not to be taken seriously. There
is a clear irony and contradiction between what is good
clinical practice for the individual, and what you propose
would ultimately alter the disease attributions. How are we
to resolve this irony?

Shorter. I do not see a contradiction here at all. The physi-
cian has a whole bag of psychological tricks for dealing
with chronic psychosomatic illness, chronic somatization.
It is very important not to legitimate these toxic diagnoses,
and there is no doubt that multiple chemical sensitivity and
chronic fatigue syndrome are toxic diagnoses, because they
cause the patients to become fixated upon their symptoms
and to dig in even further so that they acquire a sense of
hopelessness.
Now, you do not have to endorse the patient's illness
representations in order to treat the patient in a humane and
serious way in the patient-doctor relationship. You do not
have to contradict the patient. You can diplomatically slide
over the illness attributions in silence, at the same time
taking the patient's symptoms seriously in other ways.

Wessely. Suppose a transcript of the proceedings here was
circulated among a group of patients who believe they
have toxic dental amalgam or suffer from multiple chemi-
cal sensitivity, it would be clear that the clinicians in this
audience would no longer get any patients. Once it was
known that they had presumably endorsed the views they
had heard at this symposium, that would be the end of their
clinical practice. They would no longer be able to do the
good things that you have said. So there is a fundamental
tension between the public good, and the clinical necessity
of treating patients, and it's one that is hard to resolve.

Shorter, The tension is between the need to be effective
health care educators and the need to have patients. This is
clearly a moral choice, and I am sure everybody in this
room would opt for the side of the good guys saying, "Our
role as physicians is to educate the vast public, which
consists of millions and millions of people, that we are
dealing with hocum here, rather than to cling to these few
extra patients. We have plenty of patients after all who
have plenty of other problems".

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/simon-wessely-and-all-in-the-mind.13979/

I think Shorter's writing on CFS is some of the most loathsome stuff I've ever read.

 

[TiredSam]

There's this Wessely Shorter discussion I quoted from in a thread about the way Wessely complains about the 'all in the mind' slur:



http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/simon-wessely-and-all-in-the-mind.13979/

I think Shorter's writing on CFS is some of the most loathsome stuff I've ever read.

A dialogue between Wessely and Shorter? I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to read it

 

[worldbackwards]

A dialogue between Wessely and Shorter? I'm sorry, I just can't bring myself to read it

It's okay, I've got exclusive footage...

 

[Hermes]

emailed to her

Dear Suzanne O'Sullivan,

I am contacting you in relation to your book 'Its All in your head'. As a trained doctor you will be aware of the need to differentiate between real organic biological illnesses backed up by scientific research findings and clinical findings on one hand and psychosomatic and imagined illnesses on the other hand. There are vast differences between and one should not mix them up. Failure to carry out accurate lab tests with high sensitivity and specificity should not not be an excuse to label patients 'psychosomatic'. I remember one case where an Irish medical doctor claimed a woman had 'woman problems, depression and neurosis' and recommended a psychiatrist for her, when in fact she had Cancer. She died from Cancer because the Irish doctor was happy enough to label her psychosomatic (and insult her for being a woman). Many doctors are too dismissive of patients today, pointing to a lack of professionalism, thoroughness and integrity. In the Chapter 'Rachel' you portray ME / CFS as an imaginary illness based on false beliefs, and this subjective belief of yours is reinforced throughout the book. You will need to educate yourself about certain medical and scientific facts concerning ME and CFS, which I have itemised below
- Firstly in 2015 the NIH and IOM recognised ME / CFS as a serious, biological, physical, multisystem disease in it's report and re-named it SEID. They used extensive research and medical doctors and scientists with expertise in the illness to develop this report and name change.
- There is scientific evidence of infections and immune system, neurological, endocrine, mitochondria and cardiac abnormalities in ME and CFS, please read www.me-ireland.com/scientific.htm
- There are diagnostic protocols and biomarkers for the illness, readhttp://www.me-ireland.com/structure.htm#8 I am in corespondence with senior NIH officials involved in verifying these biomarkers in subgroups of patients, through ongoing intra mural and extra mural studies. I have found the NIH personnel to be very respectful and professional in their work and attitudes. There is no room for psychosomatic nonsense and it's lies.
- Many of your psychological assertions have been analysed and debunked on www.me-ireland.com/bogus.htm
- For a good overview of ME, CFS and Fibromyalgia, please readwww.me-ireland.com

I am sure this will provide you with the necessary information to clear up your misunderstandings.

Best Regards
David Egan

 

[Hermes]

Dear Suzanne O'Sullivan,

I am contacting you in relation to your book 'Its All in your head'. As a trained doctor you will be aware of the need to differentiate between real organic biological illnesses backed up by scientific research findings and clinical findings on one hand and psychosomatic and imagined illnesses on the other hand. There are vast differences between and one should not mix them up. Failure to carry out accurate lab tests with high sensitivity and specificity should not not be an excuse to label patients 'psychosomatic'. I remember one case where an Irish medical doctor claimed a woman had 'woman problems, depression and neurosis' and recommended a psychiatrist for her, when in fact she had Cancer. She died from Cancer because the Irish doctor was happy enough to label her psychosomatic (and insult her for being a woman). Many doctors are too dismissive of patients today, pointing to a lack of professionalism, thoroughness and integrity. In the Chapter 'Rachel' you portray ME / CFS as an imaginary illness based on false beliefs, and this subjective belief of yours is reinforced throughout the book. You will need to educate yourself about certain medical and scientific facts concerning ME and CFS, which I have itemised below
- Firstly in 2015 the NIH and IOM recognised ME / CFS as a serious, biological, physical, multisystem disease in it's report and re-named it SEID. They used extensive research and medical doctors and scientists with expertise in the illness to develop this report and name change.
- There is scientific evidence of infections and immune system, neurological, endocrine, mitochondria and cardiac abnormalities in ME and CFS, please read www.me-ireland.com/scientific.htm
- There are diagnostic protocols and biomarkers for the illness, readhttp://www.me-ireland.com/structure.htm#8 I am in corespondence with senior NIH officials involved in verifying these biomarkers in subgroups of patients, through ongoing intra mural and extra mural studies. I have found the NIH personnel to be very respectful and professional in their work and attitudes. There is no room for psychosomatic nonsense and it's lies.
- Many of your psychological assertions have been analysed and debunked on www.me-ireland.com/bogus.htm
- For a good overview of ME, CFS and Fibromyalgia, please readwww.me-ireland.com

I am sure this will provide you with the necessary information to clear up your misunderstandings.

Best Regards
David Egan

 

[Freddy]

If anyone needs a reminder who Edward Shorter is:

Ed Shorter:
"...
Finally, the wind went out of this particular sail late in the 1990s when it became apparent to the patients that nobody believed they had a distinct organic disease, as real as mumps, called “CFS.”
I described this sometime ago in my book, From Paralysis to Fatigue: Psychosomatic Illness in the Modern Era (Free Press, 1992). Nothing has changed since then in scientific terms. There have been no convincing new studies, no breakthrough findings of organicity, nothing.

And there never will be. ..."

I really admire Dr. Shorter, he isnt just a MD but a prophesier!

 

[Mel9]

There's this Wessely Shorter discussion I quoted from in a thread about the way Wessely complains about the 'all in the mind' slur:



http://forums.phoenixrising.me/index.php?threads/simon-wessely-and-all-in-the-mind.13979/

I think Shorter's writing on CFS is some of the most loathsome stuff I've ever read.

What a horrible attitude

 

[Sean]

Nothing has changed since then in scientific terms. There have been no convincing new studies, no breakthrough findings of organicity, nothing.

And there never will be. ..."

https://web.archive.org/web/2015022...essed/201502/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-is-back

 

[Chrisb]

Shorter, The tension is between the need to be effective
health care educators and the need to have patients.

I thought that this comment by Shorter in the above post by Esther12 was particularly revealing, albeit unintentionally so.

One does not often see it stated so starkly that one of the driving forces behind this debacle is the "professional" needs of the clinician rather than the health needs of the patient.

 

[Gingergrrl]

I really admire Dr. Shorter, he isnt just a MD but a prophesier!

I thought that he was not actually an MD but was some kind of self-proclaimed "social historian?"