MEA letter to SMC regarding coverage of Hornig/Lipkin paper

[eafw]

I find this pitting of psychological vs physical medicine artificial and damaging, as do the very many scientists we work with from both fields.

The whole response from the SMC gives away their position quite well, so in a way it is useful to have that available and out in public.

But we really need to stop falling into the trap they set for us over the real/unreal or psych/not psych issue. It's still how it's reported in the press, discussed on twitter, blogs etc and is a very time-consuming distraction - we get caught up constantly batting away their allegations that we think that mental health is "inferior" and that we are therefore being "absurd" (or bullies or unreasonable or whatever it is they are wanting to use against us at that point)

The MEA response is a quite a good one, but the BPS lot are still driving the narrative and I'd really rather we, and organisations that speak for us, get hold of this and take back the driving seat as it were.

 

[Cheshire]

A blog post analyzing Dr Sykes' response.
An extract

he reason this did not surprise me is because I have seen it used with such frequency; this specific example, in the world of ME/CFS, being one that has appeared so often that you can see it coming a mile away.
Or at least, you should.

IT GOES LIKE THIS:
First, a point is rightly made to the effect that ME/CFS is not psychological in aetiology.

Now, due to the scarcity of evidence to the contrary, it’s rather hard to defend against the stated truth – so what method do you use if you want to maintain your denial without having to justify your actions? You side-step it, discredit and insinuate at the same time. Perhaps even portray yourself as the victim – though any “victim” will do, including a fictitious one such as the non-consenting ventriloquized patient. And why not take the opportunity to throw in a bit of misinformation and propaganda as well?

Essentially, the reply contains these parts:
* imply that the complaint was made that psychological illness is not “real”.
* imply that the complaint was made that psychological illness is inferior to physical illness.
* focus all the attention on this and why it is wrong.

https://autodidactauthor.wordpress.com/2015/03/10/who-told-you-that/

 

[Bob]

The last paragraph plumbs the depths of absurdity:
"Any organisation serious about CFS/ME should not care whether the causes of and treatments for an illness are physical, psychological, or a combination of the two."

It is his statement that cannot be serious. Not caring whether an illness is psychological or physical takes us back to the dark ages of medicine. Is he seriously suggesting that this would have been an acceptable response to the cause/treatment controversies that once existed over other diseases such as AIDS, for example? Is he suggesting you could ever have effectively treated HIV/AIDS without knowing whether it is physical or psychological?

Exactly. Is he saying that cancers should be treated with psychotherapy, because you "should not care whether the causes of and treatments for an illness are physical [or] psychological..."

Would they be happy to recommend CBT as an appropriate primary treatment for cancer if self-report quality of life outcomes temporarily improved in cancer patients?