Search results

Exactly right. And I think I touched on a lot of this with expectation bias and the like, but didn't want to go into even more detail on that point. I did consider removing that part of the review altogether, but thought it better to contextualise the 54% from all surveys versus the ~75% from...

In brief: there was a lot of pressure from people outside the committee, and that included pressuring their own colleagues to 'get it right' in meetings. One day, I will go into more detail than that, but I'll leave it at that for now.

Psychoanalysis is very dated. DBT is also what they use to treat borderline personality disorder. Seems like they're making it all up as they go along. Maybe that's the true meaning of functional? It functions to give them all a job doing anything they want.

Things to add to a longer version: Cochrane weaknesses (and irrelevance) "We actually used an untested version of GET we made up, not the version in trials." Backstage lobbying by vested parties The bullying of a BPS person by their own colleagues (but we're the supposed harassers) The litany...

In the meetings, I said this too. At one point people were saying, "GET has evolved from the trials. We do it differently now." To which I pointed out, "So you're basically offering an unevidenced treatment, then?" The point sunk in and we moved on. I'm glad @Adam pwme found the bit in the...

More likely, this will be for the mass-market paperback. Usually, publishers do hardback or trade paperback (bigger format), then the mass market paperback at a cheaper price. Checking just now, it seems the first edition is indeed a hardback. I think the reviews should carry over. But if not...

Of course. But also, please encourage people to vote it as helpful on Amazon, as that pushes the review to the top so that potential book-buyers (some of whom are probably at least a little bit interested in science) can see the points therein.

Thank you. It's there now, for the record, so people can quote me if needed. If I can, I'll get it all written up somewhere more formally (I know some of it is in the videos I did with David and #MEAction, but it's helpful to have it all spelled out). Thank you!

Yes, this is their modus operandi. They can't win actual debates where people get to put their own thoughts across in response, so they rely on the least transparent methods they can -- where they have the most control over what is said. I am pretty sure the RCs will be involved in the process...

Here's my review of Fiona Fox's book. Please rate it as helpful if you think it provides extra context: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/review/1783966173/R1XYSNLD2KQJ38?ref=pf_vv_at_pdctrvw_srp I added a lot that Fox (and people like Garner) haven't mentioned about the NICE process. I also...

I think the Countess of Marr and Carol Monaghan MP would be able to claim defamation. We, as a community, sadly, would not. However, it would be the ultimate response to FF's silly scribblings if they were smacked down in a court of law. I would definitely chip in to support Margaret and...

Besides all of the above (very valid) reasons, I also just find it highly unethical that "functional" is used to mean different things when speaking to patients and when speaking to clinicians -- and this is often *encouraged* by the people supposed to be on the patients' side. From people...

PEM reduced to PEF again, I see! More proof these people don't understand LC or ME. I think the contradictions Trish notes are because the GL was written by different people and they never went through it to make it fit. So most of it is BPS rubbish, with the occasional bit that sounds...

I'm cautious. Obviously, the Nakatomi paper used PET to find glial activation in ME, so this feels like a logical finding for LC, but this is still just two patients.

Exactly. This is how they operate. Don't debate it honestly, where you have to justify yourself in front of others. Just send a bunch of emails throwing your weight around afterwards, and throw your toys out the pram if that doesn't work. I am pretty sure you can find statements from NICE...

This is about the resignations. The guideline was signed off by all members before the resignations occurred. Each section was signed off over a number of meetings, and the final draft was then agreed by all. NICE suggested minor tweaks before the pause, which Peter Barry and Ilora Finlay...

Can't they use ME as a control/comparison group? See if the two illnesses work differently?

Yeah, so this is supposed to be about people delivering supportive CBT having actual expertise in ME, and knowing how ME requires a different approach (e.g., in terms of energy management and moving away from a 'false illness beliefs' model). It's supposed to stop patients being fobbed off with...

Is the language in the book as terrible as the excerpts shared, or is it due to copy and paste errors? That first quoted section has no punctuation and the ones further on just seem incredibly muddled and convoluted. And I'm being a total snob, I'm aware, but my experience from giving feedback...

The problem is, there are a thousand doctors out there (many of them quacks) claiming the same thing about their favoured drug of choice -- whether that's rituximab or bleach. It's all, at best, anecdote, and at worst cynical exploitation. And that's precisely why I didn't like these questions...