Search results

I had to keep refreshing to be able to read it as I'm not a subscriber but I managed to read it. It's better than the Guardian piece.

Eh. They probably have a great laugh about it all over cups of soup.

Why does Grover write this kind of stuff? I do not understand the mentality of these journalists - do they really believe this stuff?

I'm afraid I had been calm all day until I saw this article. It is testing me.

On the point about the Royal Colleges, what practical implications does it have if they speak up or don't speak up? What kinds of trouble could they cause to blunt any effect of the new guidelines?

Is she actually popular with people? It's all incredibly offputting and would seem to be at odds with how many people in the profession see themselves

Ah yes I forgot the ADHD comments. I thought this was interesting as she may run into trouble on dealing with autistic people this way as there is a push to changing things and talking about neurodiversity. It is just extraordinarily retrograde and wrong. I am concerned that this has a constituency.

This was really the "news" I got out of this piece - perhaps this was a way of getting ahead of this and framing the issue appropriately on behalf of the writer who seems to understand the public relations shenanigans happening here? Or was this something that was either known about before, or...

Yes - i usually do not read her twitter feed, but I looked at it due to the RCGPs appointment and I saw that she has recently has generated controversy in relation to comments re: IUD insertion (apparently not very painful and nothing to worry about) and doing hospital blood tests at the GP...

I agree. I realize it is different in the online version but perhaps another piece can run tomorrow (given that tomorrow is publication day) in the print edition that corrects this impression? It's really jarring and misleading, and quite a major publication so it does matter.

The quote was clearly taken out of context and makes little sense as presented; imagine it's too late to change print editions but they should print a clarification online as it's pretty misleading on my reading anyway

But if the idea is to do CBT or "therapy" and GET on Long Covid patients, how would this specifically further that goal? Also - they have been saying fairly consistently that the large amount dollar wise of new LC research may help ME/CFS patients (mainly as a way of not addressing the issue...

That is why I am concerned about it. I don't understand their process. Did they not have a reason for changing the guidance in the first place? Who is hovering to stick it back in? The situation has gone backwards before there. It's especially bizarre given the contents of their web pages on...

I have signed this, but I still do not really understand what is going on. (Possibly nobody does.) Why undertake this review if nothing was going to come of it? Who benefits from this? Just seems like an odd thing to do at an odd time.

Sorry if I'm missing something - why was the review done of bad evidence if the evidence was too low quality to base guidelines on it?

Shouldn't they only be offering "rehabilitation" to those who definitely DO NOT have ME/CFS? Are people going to be able to continue with this?

[Laughter from audience] :sick:

What is meant by "complex interventions"? I mean, I think I know what it means, but what is understood by this phrase by people looking at it?

A doctor once told me that I should be out "enjoying myself" as a young woman rather than being ill, as though I had made the choice. Another told me he hadn't told me I was likely to live with ME for the rest of my life at our previous appointment years before because I was "too young" to be...

"Tragically, people with long covid report many comparable symptoms. Because the two illnesses present similarly, some physicians have even misdiagnosed long covid as ME. Paradoxically, that brings us back to hope again. Congress has allocated $1.15 billion to the National Institutes of Health...