Response to headlines suggesting ME 'is all in the mind'

[Daisymay]

"Sense about Science" publishes response from Sharpe to newspaper headlines.

http://www.senseaboutscience.org/fo...to-headlines-suggesting-me-is-all-in-the-mind

Response to headlines suggesting ME 'is all in the mind'

Lead author of the study, Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychological Medicine, University of Oxford:

"The study did not find that ME/CFS is ‘all in the mind’ – in fact it didn’t look at causes of the disease at all. People think that if these kinds of treatments help, it is saying something about the nature of the illness, which of course isn’t true. This study tells us nothing about the cause of the illness, just how to help people who have it. 'All in the mind' is also a hugely misleading description of conditions that might be associated with psychological and social factors.

"The study did not contradict the view that ME/CFS is a chronic illness. These treatments, which we have found previously to be moderately helpful, are not a cure, and they do not benefit everyone. But the good news is, the benefit of these treatments is still apparent two years later, and they do not lead to a relapse of the illness. This new finding should reassure patients who want to try these treatments."

 

[SOC]

Wow, what a load of back-pedaling and backside-covering. Too bad there's no option on this article for commentary pointing out some of Sharpe's previously expressed views on ME/CFS. Probably why he chose this particular outlet for his CYA propaganda.

Although the bit about

'All in the mind' is also a hugely misleading description of conditions that might be associated with psychological and social factors.

is rather telling. So the condition is associated with psychological and social factors, it's just not ALL in our minds, is that what he's saying?

 

[Bob]

blah blah blah...

A lot of words. Sometimes the words mean one thing, and sometimes they mean another thing...

blah blah blah...

 

[Bob]

These treatments, which we have found previously to be moderately helpful, are not a cure...

So the 'recovery' paper will be retracted? Or is a 'recovery' different to being 'cured'... blah blah blah... words words words...

 

[Denise]

@Daisymay thanks for posting this.
As others have said - where Sharpe posted this is *interesting*.

 

[Large Donner]

But the good news is, the benefit of these treatments is still apparent two years later, and they do not lead to a relapse of the illness. This new finding should reassure patients who want to try these treatments."

Ah I see. But who should I trust, should I trust all the other surveys, studies and patient statements posted by the work of people like Tom Kindon who contradict this claim. Should I distrust my own experience when not pacing or having to over do things out of utter necessity, or should I just trust the bla bla blaers?

No prizes for guessing the answer.

Funnily enough Rona Moss Morris is claiming today they just need to work out how to apply these treatments more to treat more people, - those who don't benefit from it.

So objectively, a zero result just needs to be worked on more, because a zero result is proof the result is something to grow??!!

Perhaps they will now give people CBT in pacing until they establish it as the best option between SMC, GET, CBT and pacing. It surely seems from the little data we have seen on this current "study" that's something they can objectively claim.

Lets not forget though that the follow up surely dealt with people who went back to natural pacing not the APT made up for the PACE trial which could have been anything from a form of GET to outright bullying. GET on steroids perhaps.

Or they could just leave us too it and pay back the £5 million from the PACE trial by asking their insurance industry buddies to cough it up from their multiple billions back into the public purse.

Its just endless, their positioning to maintain their ability to continue the bla bla bla.

 

[Bob]

@Daisymay, I forgot to thank you for posting it.

There seems to be a change in the language used. Which is interesting.

 

[TiredSam]

'All in the mind' is also a hugely misleading description of conditions that might be associated with psychological and social factors.

Psychologica and social. He could add "biological" or "physical" to that list if he really wanted to.