Search results

No, that's not true at all. Certainly the "brain training" umbrella includes some dubious shit, but you can't lump it all in the same garbage can. There is valid neuroscience there, in terms of classic conditioning and the neurobiological stress responses.

Well, I think that's a problem. What I see is a lot of misinformation about biopsychosocial being continually spread here. Then, those misunderstandings lead to personal attacks and unfairly panning studies before even looking at them. The PACE trial is an interesting example. Clearly many...

There you go assuming bad faith. I'm very familiar with how scientific methodology works, but you've poisoned the well before we've even started discussing specifics, so it's pointless going further. That's exactly the problem that I see all the time on s4me, and people aren't going to join...

Well, that's simply not true, and is a classic example of why people avoid joining this forum, including myself. There are many biopsychosocial studies with objective outcomes, e.g. grey matter, cortisol awakening response, autonomic response. The problem is that these aren't really biomarkers...

I don't think anyone was claiming that something ridiculous was possible. You seem to be using a strawman here.

Wilshire et al. reanalysed the PACE trial using the original protocol, and (unsurprisingly) got different results. I didn't see anywhere in their study where they showed the the ideas leading up to the PACE trial were invalid, but if I've missed it, let me know.

I'm not the OP here, but I'll reply anyway. I think we should assume good faith, i.e. assume that everyone posting in this forum is aware of the problems with inappropriate treatment. Also, it's certainly not true to say that "all BPS-approaches to ME/CFS has caused a great deal of harm to...

I had a look at the first page of that discussion, but the first page was almost entirely ad hominem attacks rather than a discussion of the science.

No, I think that is an overgeneralisation that seems to happen quite often here. Every "BPS" study posted here seems to get shot down before even looking at it. (Yes, I know that's an overgeneralisation as well, but that's the impression that I get, and it puts a lot of people off joining the...

Yeah, most of these people are a bit irritating, with their mix of science and handwaving. Jan Rothney (author of "Breaking Free") "lectured in Health and Social Care, and been trained in behaviour therapy, counselling skills and stress management", so she does seem to have some proper...

I don't think it's helpful to be calling it a "bullshit group". We should be discussing the evidence, not making ad hominem attacks. What makes Exhaustion Disorder any more non-existent than ME/CFS? They are both just diagnoses based on somewhat arbitrary criteria.

That's a bit of an exaggeration. There are good and bad BPS studies, just as there are with biomedical ones. I think I've seen more terribly bad biomedical ME/CFS studies than bad BPS ones. Sometimes this forum uses the word BPS as a pejorative, which doesn't really make sense. We have...

I used to be a member of Raelan's group, but I left after getting into an argument with one of the moderators. Basically I said that brain retraining is a mixture of science and pseudoscience. That really offended her, as she is a "neuroplasticity coach", even though I didn't mention any...

I just had a look at his book "Living with ME", and sections 2.2 (Self help) and 2.3 (Mind and Body) and 2.4 (Alternative and complementary approaches) give a lot of info about things that patients find helpful. Some of it seems useful, some is based on unproven or pseudoscientific theories. So...