Search results

The initials look familiar. Personally, I wasn't offended by Valerie's blog. I am happy with the guideline in the context of what was achievable but I also know there's a lot I, too, would've liked to be in there. Perfect is always better than alright. I think this person probably thought...

That's an interesting picture. I think the IOM artificially overhangs the left-hand side of the diagram, because it more accurately covers the section where nearly all the criteria overlap (check the symptoms in that space and you'll see what I mean). I'd be interested to see where the NICE...

Tucker Carlson is all about manufactured culture wars and inciting people to rage with lies, half-lies and twisted facts. I don't want to insult those who watch his show, so I won't say more about the folly of expecting him to do better, but this is probably a wake up call to those who watched...

So not the CFQ, then...

Remember that a lot of clinics responded to the consultations with "PEM? What is this new, arcane symptom you have invented to make a new disease?" So maybe it is intentional. Then again, most of them don't understand what PEM is anyway and just see it as part of the fatigue.

I'd rather leave Kay alone, personally. I'm sure she has patients' best interests at heart. But the point still stands that if the IAG won't accept "activist" patients, it is endorsing the silencing of patients. That's a better angle, I think, and one Hilda has more control over.

Yeah, it's GET+CBT-F.

Agreed. And I think the truth is that it's clinicians who have faulty beliefs here.

I think @Hilda Bastian's desire to have a patient who isn't an "activist" (although the patient selected does seem to have a professional interest in rehab, which isn't seen as a conflict) will likely mean she ends up with voices who represent certain professional vested interests instead, and...

That's actually quite horrifying! Though, also incredibly helpful advice for girls at a certain time in history. Sadly.

You could always give patients step counters without a screen. So they can't see their own steps. That would give a less biased sample, if that's your worry?

Exactly. And that was the intent. I confirm this. Precisely.

And I'm sure he has already made his views known. Peter knows this stuff inside and out.

Do you mean on Twitter? I'm not sure it's a good idea to bother Peter and Ilora with this. Their job is done.

I've tweeted at the RCPCH and RCPCH President to ask why they think it's acceptable to use a treatment without a protocol evidenced in research on children and young people.

Yes, there were techies at the committee meetings when they had to present evidence reviews.

Thank you both! Luckily, my best friend does set design and his mum does flowers, so they both decorated the venue, did the place settings, provided all the flowers, etc. The venue themselves did all the food and drink. So in the end, there wasn't a huge amount of organising to do.

Thank you!

Right. And as I sort of touched on in my video with David Tuller, you could equally say, with that sort of loosey-goosey application of standards, that there's at least equally strong evidence of a non-zero risk of harm, too.

I think you are right, and they may have revealed what's really going on. When patients report a benefit at clinics from a therapy, it's usually because they thought the therapist was nice or supportive. One of the biggest early sources of "improvement" is the diagnosis itself (i.e., this...