Search results

It also says: "The concept of brainwashing is not generally accepted as a scientific term.[7][8]" I feel as if that makes it a less than ideal term to use when criticising the pseudoscience of others. I guess it depends on how 'harmful' is defined, but what are you classing as good evidence...

But even with Phil Parker and LP, within that there are claims that are based on science. It's not as if they're just talking about magic fair dust. They've realised that's not a good strategy. Instead, they have a narrative and where there is science that can be slotted into it, it is. To say...

I'm not saying we shouldn't call out the problems with LP. But if someone is saying that they think that LP helped them recover, and someone else just says 'LP is pseudoscientific quackery' then is there much value in that discussion? I suspect that many independent viewers of such a discussion...

Looking at some of the comments on line, I feel like twitter is a really unhelpful format. eg: describing something as 'pseudoscience' without taking the time to carefully explain why just seems like an empty insult that will not persuade anyone and anything. Also, for something like mind-body...

I think that here we see the problem of what often happens when 'pacing' becomes medicalised. IMO a lot of the controversy over pacing vs GET could be better understood as 'respect for clinicians' vs 'patient autonomy'. With articles like this, I think it is also worth thinking about what we do...

Based on what we've seen elsewhere, I'd expect the official investigation to find, regardless of what happened, that there's no real problem here and that whatever reasons for concern there were came about largely due to misunderstandings or perhaps some minor failure to follow certain...

To me, that feels like a positive interpretation of a negative sign. I think that we're facing a long and drawn out conflict that's going to end up making life worse for patients for many more years. And any mistakes from patients could make things worse, with there being no mechanisms to help...

Something to look forward to. re 'more than 50 co-authors', sounds like there's something else fun coming too? We should expect more powerful people to speak out now this has become viewed as an example of 'EBM vs the mob'.

Anyone know what this refers to?

I think that the potential problems with bias are largely similar for anecdotes of positive and negative effects, but that there are also legitimate reasons to be more concerned about anecdotes of harm, and to emphasise the need for caution in making claims about how others should treat their...

At the same time, the problems with bias around recovery anecdotes are similar to the problems with anecdotes of harm. Saying that, there are lots of reasons to be critical of the way Vogt and Recovery Norway operate. edit: I find that things can get lost in translations: Did Tuller say this...

Who forced Chalder & co to have that as the first sentence?!?!

re updating it, they say: Review Date: 2011 And: Perhaps the poor results from PACE reduced enthusiasm for an update? Ira Madan does not seem a great person for us. There are still traces of her discussions around these guidelines on the internet, and I think I remember more from a decade...

Maybe of relevance to some of the discussion here: a subreddit for neo-liberals had a brief discussion on the new NYmag piece on Long Covid and ME/CFS - One thing with a lot of ideologies is that the people who wield power in its name are often the worst of the lot. Which I guess is one of the...

Anyone have any views on the forms of objective testing used? Would we expect these to be useful tests for the sorts of cognitive problems ME/CFS patients report?

They always use the same lines to try to attack and dismiss those criticising work like PACE, because those are the most effective approaches for them. They're really consistent on this. I think that it's always useful to read things like this and try to learn how to best avoid letting them use...

First of all I want to thank @Josefina for all the work that clearly went into the article, and drawing together a wide range of sources. I've still not read it all but already found interesting points to consider and references I'd like to check out. Just things like pulling together the...

I've not read the piece yet, but lots of papers use terms that they don't themselves define, and 'neoliberal' is a pretty widely used term. I increasingly feel as if it's difficult to address the problems around ME/CFS without addressing the problems with the structures that led to them. At the...

There are the links between the wellcome trust and smc. Didn't the last couple of people running wellcome seem to have links to Wessely and some worrying signs on CFS? Maybe me action have some inside information? On what's public I'm not sure I'd want wellcome more involved.

I don't think that's close to being true. Lots of people protest for all sorts of misguided reasons. That doesn't prove anything. This let those keen to try to avoid discussing the problems with their own behaviour point their colleagues to a broken door and repeat stigmatising tropes about...