Search results

Precisely & that's the part that makes the CBT bit (that will for us be aimed at 'assisting' patients to discover that your above statement about harm is nothing more than an 'unhelpful belief'), so sinister. I don't know how to fight it, it's Goliath, ridding a juggernaut. And i really do...

It looks like the NCP will draw up something truly catastrophic & it will be lovingly welcomed by all except a few patient orgs who will be written off as 'anti science activists'. I really do feel properly afraid for the future now. But at least when the truth comes out the change in attitude...

Yes that all seem very clear. Wow. these comments are reallllly disturbing. Esp the ones from Neuros & RCP.... if that was what they said then (pre PACE & all the other bullshit of Crawley et al taking them in).... & the guideline still turned out as it did..... what hope is there for us now -...

This, this & this again. Most MPs will fall into this trap if we let them & i dont think we should underestimate the importance of making this trap abundantly clear/making sure they are knowledgeable enough to avoid it. This fudging is i believe one of the prime ways in which the BPSers will...

indeed @rvallee :emoji_medal::emoji_medal::emoji_medal::emoji_trophy::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap::emoji_clap:

There is no one 'senior' to a consultant as far as i'm aware. But certainly her colleagues & others should have known.

:D I laughed darkly at that @Lidia So rough to have it at 5, & to be the parent of a 5yr old sufferer :(

Well it's right there in the title isnt it.... 'Explaining the unexplainable' - the usual arrogance that you see in the medical profession which thinks anything which has not yet been fully be explained, simply cannot be explained, because all there is to know is already known. Really? why are...

no doubt they were conned by this --- Oh yes? that'll be cognitions like 'my child is sick/disabled perhaps i should support him/her with compassion' would it? :rolleyes: :grumpy:

I'm interested in this. To the layman, the fact that ALL of my symptoms improve radically when i am anxious or stressed makes me interested. To me as a layman it seems significant despite the fact that no Dr i have ever told about it seems remotely intrigued by it.

Ahhh thanks for that correction @Trish, it was the 'medicine' one i was thinking of. I knew he went from psychs to something more general - i'd thought it was physicians. My apologies to all for my error. But even so, the rcp clearly work closely with the other royal colleges so i still think...

Oh great, so NICE simply hire the royal college of physicians to write the GL ... the rcp... their former president being prof sir simon.... We are royally screwed. I dont know how i missed this... but surely these are the people who're actually in control, pulling the strings, not NICE at...

sorry if i've missed something but Is this RCP the royal college of physicians, royal college of psychs, or something else? if the former why are they writing a guideline NICE are supposed to be writing?

I think it really would have been worth it, imo there is no contest in terms of which is more important - his vote or his voice in the media/social media. It matters not what he says in the media in the meantime, if we end up with a guideline that favours the BPS BS the same way or worse than...

I'm with you @large donner, it's one rule for one & another for another. How convenient.

Having said all that, there may be a way to use Dr Shepherd's example to add weight to our request for Burton etc's influence to be curtailed due to CoI? see here https://www.s4me.info/threads/draft-letter-to-nice-about-conflicts-of-interest-in-the-guideline-appointments.6519/page-4

Oh dear :( I hold Dr S in very high regard and can see he has been put in a very difficult position with this, but i think it's a terrible mistake. I dont think anyone else who has a 'strong opinion' will remove themselves from discussions, oh no. And really, who cares if he wouldnt be able...

@Brian Hughes I'd like to use this marvellous except in my S4ME signature.... would that be ok? So it would read "We should not see ME/CFS as resulting from mass cognitive hysteria among a quarter of a million UK citizens. Rather, we could see the biopsychosocial theory of ME/CFS as a grand...

It's actually the smiling, placatory, patronising bit that i find most offensive about the whole thing. I have also come across several people saying they have FND, talking about it as if their Drs believed it was organic. As you say, the triumph of blurring.

Yes