Further reading from @TommyShakes | Blaming the victim, all over again: Waddell and Aylward's biopsychosocial (BPS) model of disability journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.117…
Problems in the assessment of psychosomatic conditions in Social Security benefits and related commercial schemes | J Psychosom Res 1995 pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8568732/
"Some diagnoses are purely subjective by definition..."
Part of the problem is the assumption that such a "medical model" actually exists.
When actually this seems to be a description of one of a number of different scenarios, where the ideal "model" is at the top.
Another big assumption about the "medical model" is that it makes assumptions.
From my own experience, application of BPS in healthcare, rather than addressing complex issues in a multifactorial way, essentially reduces it to "guided self-help", and further exacerbates the problem.
Dog whistle medicine and disability denial - Unum, Aylward and the "Wessely School"
Aylward also contributed a section to the Trends in Health and Disability 2002 report (Unum) - it's quite dry though. The section by a certain Dr Sharpe is more interesting... web.archive.org/web/2003012615…
"Both State and private insurers pay people to remain ill."
Nice dig at patient support groups and charities there too. 😠
No mate, biggest obstacle to recovery is lack of effective treatments.
Sharpe mentions the 2002 CMO report, which I linked to here:
The (International) Cambridge Symposium on ME/CFS/PVFS (April 1990) occurred a few weeks after Melvin Ramsay died.
The proceedings from the conference were eventually published in this book, 2 years later (1992): me-pedia.org/wiki/The_Clini…x.com/RFH1955/status…
Dr Leslie Simpson (from Univ of Otago, NZ) mentioned the symposium in a letter to the JRSocMed in 1991...
His research on Nondiscocytic Erythrocytes in the Pathogenesis of ME/CFS is included in the book at chapter 65.pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12…
Ramsay and Dowsett's study was published in the Postgrad Medical Journal in 1990, but this was the last time that Dowsett managed to get any of her research published in a UK journal. pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC24…
Yesterday, the @MEAssociation published this statement on its website, alleging that their trustees had been accused of illegal payments and dishonesty. meassociation.org.uk/2024/12/mea-st…
They claimed that the current 2014 version of their Articles of Association, as registered with Companies House in 2014, does not forbid payments to trustees for services provided.
They helpfully posted a link to that document.
And if you click on the link and download those "2014 Articles of Association", this is what you see at the relevant section:
This was a very good phone-in show, and well worth a listen in full.
#GreatestMEdicalScandal
It was particularly interesting to hear what Wessely had to say, and I'll come on to that below, because he has said many, many things about this over the years.
First of all, his complaints about the torrent of people seeking diagnoses for autism and ADHD.
This is what he said about a very similar thing in 2002:
What's more interesting is that Wessely issued a statement to the show to say that he had "never suggested that ME or chronic fatigue syndrome were non-diseases".
Oh... but what's this...?
And, yes, of course every disease (condition) has a psychological component, because they all tend to occur in conscious human beings with brains! 🙄
The whole point of Engel's thesis (as far as I see it) was to ensure that the patient wasn't left out of the treatment of their disease.
Practical things, like not referring a patient who can't drive to an appointment 2 hours' drive away.
If it helps, I'm going to try to put together a thread of tweets from #MaeveInquest, so that those there/online can concentrate on what's said and don't have to worry about threading.
The #PACEtrial is a prime example of how the current medical publishing model doesn't work.
😲that a study so flawed can remain in print and in prominence for so long, without any correction or even investigation.
Everyone @TheLancet involved should be ashamed of themselves.
Dozens of letters were sent to @TheLancet after publication to point out serious methodological errors.
Some were published (start here: )
but not a single correction has been made.thelancet.com/journals/lance…
@TheLancet In their response, the authors simply reiterate what they did, and fail to address the queries posed by the correspondents.
As a former Correspondence copyeditor for The Lancet, this sort of thing used to annoy me all the time.