Search results

Congratulations, Kitty! It's really distressing to go through these reviews, so the less often, the better.

I can't find any info about 'Light Touch' PIP reviews on the government website. Is there any? I've found this on the Salford CAB site:

It's the standard form that gets sent out for a PIP review. AR2 is the form the for 'light touch' review.

I hadn't been aware of this. It's still under test and only in certain locations:

Is it worth changing the title of the thread to, 'Do you want the video of Maeve Boothby O'Neill's case made public?' to help pull in the punters?

The video thread is here.

I'm pleasantly and, I have to say, massively surprised by that statement from BACME.

Is that illumination worth you crashing for, though? What do you gain by that illumination? (Serious questions, only you can answer!) What about doing an experiment and avoiding that stuff for a week and see how you feel at the end about continuing?

I avoid the horrible stuff by simply not reading/watching it, these days. I also try to focus on things that I can impact, and not worry about or dwell on those that I can't. Would you be able to avoid reading that stuff if you decided to?

Just want to say how hugely grateful I am to you for this. I'm sure we all are. You make such a tremendous difference in the world for us.

That's an excellent question! I can't find anything in the Newcastle paper that would allow that kind of distinction (haven't had time to look at the other) but I wonder if it would be standard practice for GPs to make a referral to a specialist clinic if they were in doubt of the diagnosis (of...

Catching up with this thread again, and this MERUK page references two UK studies in which only about half of GP-referred 'ME/CFS' patients had their diagnosis confirmed in specialist centres: In the first – originally published in 2010 in the Journal of the Royal College of Physicians...

Brilliant, thanks! No scary messages. :thumbup:

I'd like to read these articles on David Marks's website but get a scary security message when I follow the links. Does anyone have a solution?

But it was unclear to me (on a really skimpy reading) whether the practitioner had put forward all of their clients for the interviewer to select from. Maybe they had 100 clients and only chose the best 20? But as I said, I haven't read it properly, sorry! Bit short on time.

Thanks for leaving some critical feedback on this! I'd avoid saying, '5 of the 11 followed up patients fully recovered' because we don't know that they did - only that the authors say that the participants say that they did, which is two removes from actual fact. I don't know if you can...

:thumbup: That's weird. On what basis? Did you have the impression it was all/most of your colleagues at the seminar?

Can we even say that we have evidence that it happens? If you wanted to say this in a paper, could you back it up?

Do you think it's possible to answer the question, even roughly, in principle? The obvious thing to do seems to be to grab a bunch of people who have been diagnosed by a doctor and then check whether they fulfil either that country's health service criteria (which in the UK would be the NHS...

That's a excellent question that I haven't thought through at all. I suppose I must first define 'do have it' but even if I take current definitions, maybe that's going to vary country to country.