Search results

From the Brian Hughes article: "Overall, across no fewer than 172 CBT studies, NICE graded 153 (89%) as “VERY LOW” quality and the remaining 19 (11%) as “LOW” on quality. Not a single study was found to have exceeded that abysmal threshold. A similar bloodbath befell studies of graded exercise...

WOWEE, this is so powerful, brilliant article. I hadn't appreciated NICE had come up with such damning critique of all those CBT/GET papers. Very therapeutic read!

I completely agree and there needs to be proper, regular checks on all these clinics to ensure they are indeed upholding new guidelines and not carrying on as usual on the sly.

Oops, sorry, ME brain!

Yes and no, I think the public prejudices were to a considerable degree promoted by the BPS brigade, courtesy of the media, to set the scene so they could more effectively promote their agenda.

Why haven't people like Gladwell and BACME been publicly calling for CBT/GET to be dropped years ago and for the current NICE guidelines to be dropped until new guidelines are published? Seems to me they only speak out now to save face/keep their jobs? Or perhaps the pressure on them to...

Quite so, and also KCL and other academic organisations. Assuming the final NICE guidelines reject CBT/GET and regrd ME as a mutli system medical condition, not behavioural then KCL etc will have to undergo a radical paradigm shift in thinking, invalidating their work over the past thirty odd...

Brilliant, thank you so much x

Psychology/psychiatry needs to stop using the word recovery and invent a word which is clearly understood by all to define what THEY choose to mean by recovery.

Many thanks Michiel for doing this!

So he has, funny that..... And in the last 24 hours, instead he's posted two LP/CFS success stories, I guess he needs to bring in more clients before the news gets out to the wider world that the NICE draft has proscribed LP for ME. I just checked on Wessely, Gerada and SHarpes twitter pages...

Posted on behalf of Margaret Williams: "It is not surprising that Professors Wessely, White, Sharpe and Chalder commented as they did for the Science Media Centre’s press release on the NICE draft guideline. They are well-known for being either unable or unwilling to face reality by their...

Phil Parker tweeted 6 hours ago: "nice guidelines change removing GET. It always seemed quite a blunt instrument to me..." Then posts a link to the Guardian article, completely failing to mention to his readers that NICE also specifically said lighting process not recommended! I looked at...

But how do they know if the two groups of people had the same exposure to the virus? Are their assumptions on this valid?

THanks for posting Tom and reminding us, it reads just as shockingly now as it did back then.

We've used the cheap energy club for some years too and I agree it's good. Likewise, no affiliations other than using it.

Yeah...brilliant everyone!

Another small donation with thanks x Let's get it to 100% !

Yes and as there are no RCT's on these revised forms of CBT/GET, NICE surely couldn't recommend them when it's whole thing is to only recommend treatments on the basis of (supposed) gold standard RCT's? So if, big if, NICE were to reject BPS CBT/GET where does this leave them? How do they dig...

Donated, with thanks x