Search results

I suspect history will show that, given how imprecise the diagnosis is for ME/CFS, there will be a small subgroup of people so diagnosed that GET will help. But I think history will also show that the majority of people diagnosed are not helped by it, and a significant number of those will be...

The trouble with testimonials is they are, by definition, very positively biased. People typically only write them if things went well for them. And only the most positive ones will get presented. What we don't get is any sense of how many people were not helped, and how many people ended up...

But is there any hard evidence he OK'd it? Or are you saying that it would be demonstrably implicit?

But the converse is therefore also valid... "The focus of this new approach on illness is then seen as merely a pragmatic way of simplifying the complexity of illness-without-known-disease for the purposes of intervention, valuable where such a simplification is possible and relevant, but also...

Is it feasible someone (or two, a few) from our side could present an article for publication? Something much more rational and to the point of course.

Sort of compounded subjectivity. Subjective assessment of how their subjective fatigue ratings varied over the two weeks.

Probably not lying down ;).

Relative to what?

Is this following statement true? What a pile of contrived bile this is. The hypothesis these treatments are based on is totally unproven for ME/CFS, meaning their safety and efficacy are also unproven. That is the objection.

Just had a short but very encouraging reply:

Agreed my terminology was ambiguous. I was meaning it in the other well accepted sense - actually able to walk albeit only proven once successfully undertaken; not a preemptive perception. I didn't realise the ambiguity when I wrote it, hence my correction in earlier post.

What is now clear to me is that I was insufficiently precise in my original post #650, and so things have veered away from what I was trying to get at with my original statement. So to step back and correct that, am repeating it here, but rephrased to avoid the ambiguity I inadvertently...

So long as those you need to convince are indeed convinced by this very fine-lined distinction, then hopefully OK. I'm finding it hard to see how being able to walk is itself a subjective outcome.

That worries me a bit. To me and my wife one of the most crucial measures of her recovery would be to be able to walk 8~10 miles across Dartmoor, or the South Downs, or the Lake District, etc, each day, as she once could. Very objective and very valid surely.

I do find this interesting... Moderator note: The rest of this post and the following discussion have been moved to a new thread: Placebo effect - discussion

So if you are a cancer patient and no longer see yourself as a cancer patient, then you are cured of your cancer. If you were to confine definitions of a cancer cure to wholly subjective ones, where people identified if they thought they still had cancer, then they would say no they didn't so...

I think the point is that chiropractic techniques are of necessity an intervention and therefore have the potential to go horribly wrong, as well as right, the same as any other medical intervention.

Interesting observation I thought, when you ponder how BPS group thinking seems pervade their ME research, supposedly reinforcing the validity of study A's findings because it tallies with the previous findings of studies B, C, D, etc.

I suspect as always it is going to be very individual. For a lot of people the first time the identity-and-ME issue will have crossed their mind is when this thread popped up. For a good many others it could well be a real issue, albeit difficult to talk about, but in a much more real way than...

Inevitable really.