Yes, and also there has been wider criticism of Garner that was misguided in tone and was always going to be bad for patients, that fell well short of anything threatening or abusive. Stuff like that can encourage other people to then go further. Some people here have not liked me going on about...
She had that previous article on the Lightning Process, that she mentions in this new article:
Jo Edward's raising some concerns:
She gets a 'positive' result but remains sceptical:
I've just edited the 'special comment' translation to hopefully make it easier to read, though it would be worth checking any key phrasing with a German speaker.
My thoughts:
"The historically less distinctively originated designation "ME" can be misleadingly understood [McEvedy and Beard...
Yes. For the first talk of 'discredited' they linked to the PACE recovery paper from Wilshire but that's only part of PACE, and part of the problems with PACE. I think that I'd have wanted to avoid such a broad claim. I think it would have been better to include some more details, and a less...
Actually, it looks better than I thought when I skimmed through last night.
There were editing notes up, and a move to have criticism of PACE strengthened and simplified, and I thought that was a mistake, especially given the importance of it to Shure's narrative.
To me, it still feels as if...
5.7.5 - the 'special' comment.
Apparently this is what the acronyms are for:
German College for Psychosomatic Medicine (DKPM)
German Society for Psychosomatic Medicine and Medical Psychotherapy (DGPM)
German society for Internal Medicine (DGIM)
German Society for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy...
Thanks.
I forgot you had to pay, but ended up translating a lot in little bits. I've not done much editing, so this sounds very roboty, but may be of interest to some others. If anyone goes through correcting bits it could be worth reposting?
I started at the ME/CFS [5.7] bit and then went on...
I remember that King's Fund report on MUS from a few years ago that, as well as being predictably bad, was surprisingly sloppy in some places.
So much goes on behind the scenes that it's easy for people inside the system to work away at securing positions for themselves and their friends in...
Walport has seemed less than awesome in some ways too.
eg I noted this when the PACE TSC minutes were not released:
Now they have been, it seems that what Walport said in defence of PACE's was overly generous to them.
Interesting for them to lean on the Flottorp piece in that way when there are so many problems with it.
What was that website that was meant to be good for translating more technical documents?
In terms of the people who hold positions that get to make judgements over how we are treated, I'd say that things look quite a bit worse than a decade ago in the UK. I struggle to see a way forward from here that isn't going to see things getting worse.
Not feeling hugely enthusiastic about this stuff from Labour, especially given their history.
I remember Ashworth being linked to Wessely, but can't think of the details now. Possible it was merely something like this, but I thought it was more:
Posts moved from this thread:
Snippets from White P et al. "Eight major errors in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline [...]" [for ME/CFS]
I couldn't find this on the MEA website. I found this page that said a response would be coming, but can't find...
This is the sort of thing it makes sense to try to engage with, but it can also be difficult for patients to do so, particularly when so when it many other things can seem more pressing. Which is one reason why so many systems and standards in medical research can driven by the self-interests of...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.