Search results

!!!!

Couldn't have come at a better time!

It wobbled, @Andy . We have to be sensitive to these trials & tribulations.

Wessley served on Sense About Science's advisory council and later they gave him an award for bravery. What a remarkable coincidence.

Thanks, I was struggling to put that exact thing into words. :thumbup: Yes, I've found that to be one of the more odious aspects of the entire business. That's also why the name for hysteria keeps shifting: it's a transparent attempt to put something on the patient's chart that they won't...

On the contrary, I think that many of these individuals are what I would call True Believers. They just see that, in order to "show" the "truth" about how right they are, that requires a certain kind of study and a specific type of reporting. This part isn't in question to me: scientists and...

Sooooo brainwashing, y/y? Oh, those poor, poor doctors. This kind of reporting is absolutely sick-making.

In the wake of the whole "treat children with chronic pain with torture" thing from NPR's Invisibilia.

???

Thank you. :hug: It's a good thing she liked my necklace and I liked her dog, or we never would've started talking!

This is a wellspring of awesome, @Andy thank you!

This is one of my strongest objections to this whole framework: that the average healthy doctor has any idea what constitutes a healthy reaction to this kind of upheaval. It's normal to grieve; it's normal to focus intently on symptoms as you try to abrogate their effects or work around them...

Much more poignantly, and definitely more subjective/dubious, as it is from someone who knew him, but terrible if true: Man.

A bit of a counterpoint to that "in Ramsay's day, everyone knew pwME were sick" and "the McEvedy & Beard article did not have much effect". http://worcsmegroup.weebly.com/uploads/2/9/2/4/2924979/2019.02_-_m.e._at_the_royal_free_hospital.pdf These are apparently Ramsay's own words, from 'ME...

Thank you @ahimsa ! I've heard people say that it's only full time and that I misunderstood -- but I'd like an outside opinion on that.

Turned that around on us neatly, didn't they? And I thought we showed here that we don't actually use up "healthcare resources". Do they actually cite that, or is that within the realm of "it is known"?

It's a cornerstone of pseudoscience that the data will support any conclusion you choose to draw from it.

:thumbup::confused::confused::confused::confused:

Anything that depends on diagnostic coding to identify ... there are a few studies like this out there. Ideally, you'd get an ME expert or two to confirm that the person had been diagnosed correctly, or you'd ask them to diagnose with your chosen research criteria. Clinical criteria are looser...

Paper isn't in PubMed, at least... and, it appears, neither is he. Or if he is, he's never written about MUS before.