Private Eye - ME Cluster Bomb

Messages
2,051
Likes
10,097

Valentijn

Senior Member
Messages
15,786
Likes
45,664
Cognitive behavioral therapy can help establish these recovery routines and manage anxiety, but isn't itself a cure.
Many recover in time by gradually increasing activities when they feel able.
Sounds pretty delusional to me. And it's typical of BPS propaganda to emphasize how serious and disabling the disease is, while still slipping in CBT and GET as effective treatments.
 
Messages
44
Likes
110
I think it's a really good article. It does acknowledge that CBT itself isn't a cure and that some patients are "simply unable to increase activity and exercise levels, and some are made worse by trying", and refers to the "enduring sleight that it's "all in the mind" or due to "faulty beliefs.""
 

sarah darwins

I told you I was ill
Messages
2,508
Likes
10,447
Location
Cornwall, UK
and refers to the "enduring sleight that it's "all in the mind" or due to "faulty beliefs.""
I was kind of torn about this article. But while, yes, he does mention those things, he talks as if those things simply happened. They didn't. The stigmatising of patients and the lack of the biomedical research he says we need are 100% the fault of the same people who have fanatically pushed CBT, a non-treatment he himself promotes in the article.

He's either playing a game, or he's very confused.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Likes
23,081
I think he just doesn't understand why the work of the BPS school is bad science.

The Lancet published it, and the authors are professors, and the results are positive, so there must be some truth to it. That's probably how most people with superficial knowledge would think.
 

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,157
Likes
17,719
Reading it more carefully, he's spinning the line about sorting out sleep and managing activity changing biochemistry - hormones and cortisol.

That's exactly the 'biological' line Crawley is spinning. What neither of them admits is that such things may well effect biology - so does eating chocolate and standing on your head - that doesn't mean any of those things are having a significantly useful, let alone curative, effect on the bit of our biology that is malfunctioning.

The simplistic, illogical leaps they take are breathtaking. They wouldn't dare claim sorting out sleep and activity change the biology of a cancer sufferer in a way that will cure their cancer.

But I must give credit where credit is due. It is generally a good article.
 
Last edited:

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Likes
21,245
Location
Germany
I think it's a brilliant article, and a major step forward to see something like this in a publication with the circulation and profile of Private Eye. Also very big of him to admit his mistakes and take on board the patients' perspective. Many others in the UK have chosen to look the other way, stay out of it or remain silent.

We can nit-pick about bits of it (I winced when I read about CBT and increasing activity levels - but he clarified to my satisfaction), but basically he's listened to what he's been told by patients, seems to have mainly grasped it, and chosen to publish. I suggest a large dose of appreciation and encouragement is due to him and Private Eye. With any luck they'll realise they're onto something and might follow it up with a piece on PACE, plus Phil Hammond seems prepared to use his access to media outlets (print and radio) to get our point of view out unsupervised by the SMC and uncorrupted by BPS bullshit in the name of "balance". Nobody is more enthusiastic than a recent convert. Benefit of the doubt and a big thank-you from me.
 
Messages
2,051
Likes
10,097
He's either playing a game, or he's very confused.
What game would he be playing? He'll get no brownie points from his boss for this, and he'll know enough about the ME community to know that plenty of people will slag him off whatever he writes.

As for confused, well, he's not the one who's sick, so who wouldn't be. I'm bloody confused.
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
Likes
4,964
I am very impressed by this article.

I've never heard of Private Eye. Is it considered a reputable source?

Edit. Now I'm also bloody confused as Wickepedia says it's a satirical publication? Did I misread this?

I've downloaded a couple of cartoons that are quite funny.
 
Last edited:

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,157
Likes
17,719
It is a satirical magazine, but it also does a lot of digging into the wrongdoings of powerful people and tackles stuff mainstream media won't tackle. All credit to them for publishing this. They've been sued by the rich and powerful a few times over the years.
 
Messages
2,051
Likes
10,097
Now I'm also bloody confused as Wickepedia says it's a satirical publication? Did I misread this?
Private Eye is a mixture of satire and investigative journalism, edited by Ian Hislop of Have I Got News For You fame. This is the latter. :)

Reputable? Generally, though it has been prosecuted for libel more times than I can remember. It is known for picking up important but unglamorous stories that no one else wants to touch. So, it should be a perfect fit.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Likes
37,687
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
Now I'm also bloody confused as Wickepedia says it's a satirical publication?
Satire is often used to tackle issues involving the elite and powerful, including government. Calling Private Eye satirical may itself be a purposeful attack on their credibility. To be fair I haven't read very much of their work over the years, so cannot comment directly on the credibility of what they do.
 

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Likes
37,687
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
And it's typical of BPS propaganda to emphasize how serious and disabling the disease is, while still slipping in CBT and GET as effective treatments.
Especially with the new direction they seem to be going. It looks like they are in retreat and trying to establish a fall-back position. Now the kind of CBT practiced in most places other than with ME probably has some value in helping some patients cope. What seems to be missing is an acknowledgement that CBT as used by the BPS CF crowd is not that kind of CBT.
 

JohnCB

Immoderate
Messages
351
Likes
2,558
Location
England
I saw no mention of Fitnet nor Mega. Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

I have seen him write before in The Times. He did write about having moved to working in a clinic for children with CFS/ME. In that article I don't recall him taking a strong opinion of the etiology either way, but in truth I cannot recall the article in detail. A major point in his story was that he had moved to an environment where he could spend up to 90 minutes with a sick child and was happier with this than his previous role where he had a few minutes per appointment. He did seem sympathetic to the sick children.

However I had not regarded him as someone campaigning on the issue one way or another. Prior to this I would have been mildly suspicious of his viewpoint. Maybe he has come off the fence somewhat. I know he has an association with Ms Creepy, but this article isn't toeing her line. It will be interesting to see how this pans out. I think he used to write quite regularly for The Times, if my brain fog is correct. So he has some media influence. It could pull some more doctors away from the current BPS orthodoxy. Like many, I think I want to wait to see if this develops or fizzles out, but it does seem promising. But we have been let down before.