Search results

What am I misunderstanding here. To me the first sentence seems to be saying all the participants had an anxiety score > 18 and all had CFS. The second sentence see to be saying the same thing except 42% not 100%. I know I'm misreading this but not sure how.

Wording is a bit fluffy, but to me the target date pertains the the decision. If it relates instead to it having been through the editorial process, then it's down to how good they are at making decisions.

Yep. And PACE will be retracted; NICE will withdraw GET and CBT from the current guideline, MS & EC will sincerely apologies to PwME and promise to put things right; the SMC will apologise and start reporting everything honestly; and my backside will fit into trousers with a 30 inch waist!

True, but I think we must be past the cut-off point for seeing anything on the 29th? ETA: Ah, a bit slow. I guess that's the point you are making :).

"which we anticipate will be towards the end of November 2018" Maybe the scale is in milliseconds.

Excellent. Good to see you here @Naomi10 :).

Yes, I noted long time back that "the taxman" invariably seemed to send bad news timed to arrive on a Friday, so you had to stew (and maybe cool down?!) over the weekend before any chance of talking to them on Mon.

I can only guess they are including the 'recoverers' amongst the 2/3 who improve? So 1/3 do not improve (so how many get worse?).

I'm guessing 30 Nov (18!).

Yes, I do very much appreciate the comments will have been made in good faith, not suggesting otherwise at all. I just feel that these charities must have the connections needed to double check the facts before reporting as facts. Because those statements very much were counting chickens before...

I have to say I'm extremely disappointed with #MEAction and the MEA, because I took what they said in good faith (as did @Sasha very reasonably), and posted this very encouraging 'news' to a FB group where hope, as always, can be in very short supply for PwME. I now find I have been the purveyor...

Given that so many people do not recover, might it also tie in with the possibility there could be something fundamentally different with those who do recover?

Can't help thinking that the psychs have gone off half cocked for years presuming they are doing RCTs and making big claims to that effect, when in fact that have not. Feels like they, and maybe trialists from other disciplines, need to get round the table and work from the ground up to work out...