Search results

Hi @JaimeS, of course agree 100% about BPS proponents being v good at presenting themselves as experts, but sorry don’t quite follow the point you were making? I saw 3 written Parliamentary briefings before last Thursday’s UK Parliament debate, one from Invest in ME, one from ME Action...

Thank you for your expert review, so it fails by the sounds of it not only by dangerously promoting the false bps model of ME but also by not following the standard content that should be included in a medical education module.

The course reads exactly like the pacing booklet I remember getting from Action for ME 14 years ago. Boom and bust mentioned frequently and though the book’s title was Pacing it was clearly advocating gradual increases in activity as the path to recovery. If you read further they would qualify...

Thanks @EspeMor for your reply. I hear what you are saying but can I just clarify are you saying that the MPs had information on the actual bps content of the GP online training module? Thank you.

Awful, truly awful. PACE and FINE cited as evidence for GET and CBT. @dave30th, have you seen this dreadful online course content for UK GPs ? @EspeMor, @Action for M.E., I notice that Minister Steve Brine in the June debate referred to this terrible online course. I feel it would have been...

@Simbindi and @Tom Kindlon, thank you, will read soon as able, sounds bad as we feared. Minister Steve Brine also said ME is identified as a key area of clinical knowledge in the GP’s Applied Knowledge Test in their qualifying GP exams. Does anyone know how this material could be accessed as...

Sorry too ill today to see if this has been mentioned today in this thread, but it looks v likely the 90 min online RCGP educational course for GPs mentioned by the Minister Brine is the METRIC one discussed in photo on left. The info in the photo says materials for this course were based on the...

I wrote the above just after watching the debate and having missed the first bit of Carole Monaghan’s opening speech. So only until I read the transcript did I see she touch on the psychs role in wrongly portraying ME as a primarily psychological condition and of course the failure of the PACE...

Further to the topic on the 90 min online RCGP training course on ME for doctors the Minister mentioned in the Parliament debate today, Invest in ME have just written to tie in with the debate a great document on the main issues in ME. Pages 14-21 go into great detail on the lack of appropriate...

Thanks @ukxmrv I looked that up earlier but obviously I can’t actually see the content, just a very vague outline. Would be great to know the content, I expect bps based so not helpful. I was looking again at RCGP comments on the 2017 consultation on whether the NICE guidelines should be...

Knackered so can’t write much but briefly thought the MP’s spoke v well overall, got across the stigma, that GET harms yet still in NICE guidelines, lack of biomedical research funding and that ME is a physical illness. Would have liked a bit more on psychs harmful dominance on ME and the...

Does anyone know what the content of this course is like? Thank you.

I will delete my tweet then.

Tweeted author of article, Sarah Knapton, with this info, though doubt she will reply. She has form and noticed she hasn’t tweeted about this article.

@Jonathan Edwards, sorry, no, I was just surmising as was just trying to work out the bps’s lot involvement in the Cochrane papers. Esther though did point out above White was thanked for his advice on the 2017 paper. @dave30th and @Esther12, thank you, finally understand.

Can I ask again what is meant when it says people like White were involved in the Cochrane review? Was he involved in the 2017 one as well as this protocol that has just been taken down, or were he, chalder and White just involved in the 2014 one where the protocol had been put up and the review...

I am always a bit confused when it is said White et al were reviewers on the 2017 meta analysis as I don’t see their names there? Thank you.

Interesting to see Michael VanElzakker tweet this today.

Apologies too sick to read posts of last few pages, just quick reminder deciding on a definition is part of the scoping document - although of course agree “the strongest argument that we have is that current guidelines are based on science that is so flawed as to be worthless.”

5 of those 17 are patient members, so so far still more bps proponents to biomedical amongst the professionals. According to Jane Colby, executive director of children’s ME charity Tymes Trust, 2007 NICE group did not give equal weight to patient views. Jane Colby wrote in her witness statement...