Search results

The problem is, the NHS is run on targets (i.e., goals). So it was very hard not to include them, even though many of us didn't want the word anywhere near the GL. Maybe if the NHS wasn't used as a political football... But I'll stop there before I break any rules.

They're cowards. They couldn't stand behind their arguments in person so they do it behind an anonymous statement instead. Yawn.

I have the title now for my memoir expose: Throwing Asteroids at Dinosaurs. I jest. But there's a part of my brain now thinking, "I could totally do that..."

It's just sour grapes. They had their chance at consultation, and then at roundtable, and they weren't able to make a convincing argument. I think it's very clear that patient groups should support patients who are harmed by stealth GET, and should support them in suing the pants off the RCs...

Is it time to start replying to everyone with, "Read the guideline!" Or perhaps even better, "Dare I say read the guideline!"

There's a little confusion in the timeline (i.e., workshop, roundtable, committee, etc). But overall, I'm pleased with it. ETA: He's fixed the wording. It's now clear that the workshop was in 2017, the committees began in 2018, and the roundtable was this year.

Bloody hell. That was quick. ETA: He got the story up less than two hours after talking to me.

And from the roundtable, it seems that BACME is ready for the shift. I honestly see that as a huge watershed. People will always find something to misinterpret. They'll always look for a loophole. There was lots of good stuff in CG53 which they chose to ignore. That will always be a problem...

If people are going to be sloppy, you can't control that. Also, those who break the rules will break the rules--adding more rules won't really stop them if they've already set their hearts on it. At a certain point, you have to assume good faith going forward. Medical education is how we...

For reference: 1.11.14 Do not offer people with ME/CFS: ...any programme that does not follow the approach in recommendation 1.11.13 or that uses fixed incremental increases in physical activity or exercise, for example, graded exercise therapy (see box 4) That refers back to this bit in...

Re: physical activity and exercise, note that we inserted a clause that it also abides by the general principle of energy management (i.e., do not push through), and the general principles of care apply to the whole GL. Be careful of reading sections in isolation, because it's meant to be read...

If I'm wrong, then that'll be a lovely surprise.

I would wait a few days. NICE isn't the fastest and with big decisions, they'll need time to get things right. If it comes before next week, that'll be a lovely treat, but they'll probably have to contact stakeholders first with additional (probably embargoed) information and then release the...

When we're out of NDA, I'll share what I know within the confines of Chatham House Rules.

The committee would have to sign off any changes. That includes clarifications. But clarifications are just that--they don't change the recs but may clarify what the intent was.

I think there's a missing space, comma and question mark. So it should be: "I’d love to understand what the disagreement was. Without graded exercise, is this a syndrome without any definitive diagnostic tests, defined pathological process or effective treatment?" That makes more sense now.

Yes indeed. Awful attitude.

I wouldn't worry.

Reading the abstract, it seems randomisation would be a problem because children didn't want to be randomised. So, once again, that suggests people are a) either desperate for any treatment or b) desperate for the treatment that is currently being hyped because it's being hyped.

It seems a other people have made this claim, re: Virginia Woolf: https://msmagazine.com/2011/02/22/how-an-ill-woman-found-common-ground-with-a-wild-snail/ But the text cited doesn't really seem to line up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Being_Ill Most descriptions I've seen point to a...