Search results

The data coming out of the clinics has never borne close inspection tho, i'm surprised they're pushing that line.

assumptions from BACME that baselines must always exist, also missing the point that these presumably were set by their members and, as such, one would expect a bit more humility on the subject

Back at the comments grindstone. BACME's comments feature some occasionally reasonable suggestions, but this is largely punctuating a lot of arse covering about the specialist services. This is a curious line So, the theory was definitely wrong. But the treatment may be right? or wrong? who can...

I skipped the neurologists, but BACME saying mentioning severe ME early on "devalidated their (patients with moderate ME/CFS) experience of the illness", really?!? their comments are looking like a very mixed bag (this is perhaps unsurprising)

yeah, it's ok, i found that after having a poke around : )

This link no longer works. Does anyone know where this stuff has gone?

it really is extraordinary for the rcp to throw GET under the bus, while moaning about the way that the "date and evidence has been assessed", and then asking for a new and unevidenced treatment protocol, presumably assembled on the fly in fatigue clinics, to be given precedence, when the...

have any patient groups fronted up for this or have they just made this up?

if rcp aren't prepared to defend GET as trialed, then this is just 'our unevidenced treatment programme is fine, take our word for it'. one wonders why they bothered

I feel like cfs "experts" have a tendency to support any old unevidenced woo when it comes to ME, largely because it discredits patients to see them involved with it. I have few conspiratorial leanings on this but i feel this one pretty strongly

tho i have no opinion on the book, i always enjoy seeing ross douthat's name, as i usually disagree with him about everything and so immediately think 'don't dou that'

iirc IDS and George Osborne lost their jobs and the impetus behind an ever more unpleasant agenda went away for a bit. Now there's talk of post covid austerity and there's a danger of the old stuff being floated again, we're already hearing old chestnuts again like job centre engagement for the...

Ikr! I mean, there were patient accounts in the ME Association surveys, that were submitted years ago.

Her tweet was of the 'just asking questions here!' variety, should we be directing lots of people down a route that involves medication for life, etc. Her routine generally involves asking that people not be diagnosed with things, not get assistance for medical conditions, etc, because poor GPs.

there's been more on adhd this morning. she's a menace

blimey. is there precedent for the royal colleges not endorsing nice guidelines?

Is the article good then? I can't see the whole thing, but the 'angry backlash from the medical profession' bit seems a bit reductive.

I wonder how well this will go down. The usual suspects in ME/CFS tend only to be infamous to people in this community. Whereas I'm constantly seeing another group of people Gerada has upset week on week

It does strike me as annoying that presumably there are some stakeholders who have been bending over backwards to keep their mouths shut* about this all week and the times have just blurted it out a day early because why not? *this is a good mixed metaphor

Does anyone have the full Times article to read?