MM on ME


20 jan 2010




Not so VERY happy

In reply to this thread:

It indeed is somewhat good news, but not news that makes me - and I am Dutch, alas - VERY happy. There are two sorts of reasons for this, namely mostly personal reasons, that are somewhat elucidated on my site, by reference to the Declaration of Human Rights:

- http://www.maartensz.org/log/2010/NL100119b.htm

and apart from my own very bitter and painful adventures in Amsterdam with ME, there are the following general considerations, that I divide into two brief points

A. Quite possibly, this news was in part caused by an action of many Dutch patients with ME that demanded (Dutch) "Erken ME!" i.e. "Recognize ME!" in the spring of last year;

B. I find it a bit bitter to have to plead in a supposedly civilized country that the government should recognize a disease that has been recognized as a disease by the WHO in 1969 and that has been explicitly denied to be a psychiatric complaint by the WHO in 1992.

I agree, though, that it is an advance, if only because it seems to undo part of the madness about ME that has been the rule for some 25 years now in this country, in part thanks to the efforts of the pseudo-scientists Wessely, Sharpe, Bleijenberg and Van der Meer, and in part because so many medical doctors do not want to allow of the possibility that they may not know or understand something, and prefer to categorize all that they can't explain themselves as "psychosomatic".

Also, in part because of what I have read in other threads on this forum, and because I am - alas! - a psychologist, in terms of academic degrees:

It seems to me that, both in England and in Holland, also in connection with the DSM-V, a major effort is being made by the gentlemen of the ilk of Wessely, Sharpe, Bleijenberg and Van der Meer (1) to redefine many diseases as being both organic and psychosomatic, for obvious financial reasons (and the category of "psychosomatic disease" is - logically speaking - a category mistake i.e. scientifically speaking nonsense, but very profitable for psychiatrists and psychotherapists, who usually do not practice real science and do not know it) while (2) there seem to be quite a few attempts these days in Holland at least to produce pseudo-investigations that try to further the notion and claim that a COMBINATION of medical therapy and psychotherapy is helpful against ME.

These pseudo-investigations (I got the last half year two invitations to take part, handed over by two G.P.s) take the form of pseudo-scientific polls by psychologists that effectively invite people with ME to agree to this thesis, which has a good chance of formally succeeding, because many patients like to please doctors and psychologists, and the questionnares are quite suggestive of what would be the proper answers: "Yes, we were so very glad to get CBT and it really may have helped!".

Anyway... there are threads on the forum on the DSM-V, and it does seem to me that this is what is happening: A redefinition of "illness" in the DSM-V so as to give it both a somatic and a psychological dimension, the first to enable the medical doctors to make money from patients, and the latter to enable the psychiatric and psychotherapeutical crowds of doing the same.

It seems mostly either fraudulent or pseudo-science to me, that is attempted mostly for financial reasons. And it would be so very, very nice for all manner of supposed psycho-curers - the doctor Phils of my academic specialism - if, as a matter of course, justified by the DSM-V, that is supposed to get into force in 2012, they could sit at the beds of patients with cancer, MS, polio, broken legs or whatever "to learn them to cope with the psychological stresses and complaints that come with being ill, according to the Science of CBT", and for formidable payments to the psycho-curers from the medical insurances. (Indeed, many medical insurances may insist that first the psychotherapist must have to be shown to fail to effect a cure, before the patient has a right of seeing a real doctor, since real medical science is expensive....).

Being a psychologist I *know* how fraudulent, false and phony most of the supposed science of psychology really is, even though there are exceptions.


Maarten Maartensz

        home - index - top - mail