Search results

I feel sick about this. I kept saying, during the time when people were pressing for the guideline to be reviewed that doing it now means we'd likely end up with something even worse. I just cannot see how it can go any other way with the people they've chosen :cry: ETA: that not meant to sound...

As i said several pages ago this outcome was my fear from the beginning, & although i now see it as unlikely to have been Tovey's original intention, the outcome is the same. What a devastating master stroke :cry:

I'm afraid i think it is, i've been worrying aabout it from the beginning. but then i'm a dreadful cynic solets hope i'm wrong.

yeah i saw part of another episode last night & at least half of the consults started with the Dr saying some version of "whats been going on in your life"? "have you been under stress"? "are you feeling anxious".... before they even examined the patient. So awful i turned off

soylent green!!!!! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl: oh Donner that whole video made me laugh so much thank you.

She looks like a very cool lady :) perhaps @Brian Hughes could invite her here too?

Thats very good to hear @Jonathan Edwards thank you for sharing

Reading the article in the OP, it becomes clearer to me why so many scientists have fallen for the PACE (et al) nonsense.... very few of the people quoted in the article refer to reading papers with a critical eye - checking that the methodology is valid etc. It's like they're mostly coming at...

it seems to me. sorry that didnt read well have edited accordingly

Well you clearly know more about the players & the specifics here @dave30th, so i'm reassured by your comment :) But i feel i need to protect myself emotionally so i'm not going to get excited until i see how it pans out.

I think the whole 'normal range' thing is disingenuous anyway, because even without all the other issues, & even if the specified normal range were/is accurate, 85 isnt fit & well, it indicates some issues. So i dont want to be 'within normal parameters' i want to be WELL. Anything other than 95...

Who's to say she hasnt? I mean we know she cant have answered tham satisfactorily, because there are no satisfactory answers. But that doesn't stop this temp. withdrawal being part of the game, & that Cochrane are doing this in order to silence criticism & bolster their flawed review (which...

Indeed. Its not suicide its self administered euthanasia. TBH the only thing that is keeping me around is the fact that i know several people would be badly traumatised if i went, & 2 of them are children, which is unacceptable to me. I live on, endure on because of my love for, & desire to...

Sorry @Robert 1973 we cross posted. That is very plausible reasoning & i really hope you're right. But as we all know the continuing triumph & stronghold of BPS nonsense in the face of all logic & good science, is pretty implausible, & yet still it stands, so i wont count my chickens as i dont...

In fact what worries me the most is that once they've withdrawn it temporarily "for questions", they will have the opportunity to reinstate it with even more power than it held originally - ie as a review which was challenged, looked at again and found to be credible/reliable. Thus being even...

Do you really think so? I hope you're right, but i have difficultly imagining that they're following that, or indeed very much regarding ME/CFS. It seems this withdrawl is a direct result of direct contact with them. I'd be amazed if they even knew about what MS/EC was doing. I cant help but...

I am such a cynic, this withdrawl feels too good to be true, like they have withdrawn it just to placate people & then will make no changes & release it again with the line "you can all shut up criticising now - we have reviewd it as asked to do, & our questions have been answered to our...

It seems to me that this might be even more important than who is on the committee?

Was 2007 a 'review'? I thought that's when they were first developed ie the very first guideline that NICE did for CFS/ME? Am i mistaken? I wasnt saying that PACE didnt influence things, or that NICE wasn't privately told that it would back up what it was planning to recommend. Only that...

Thanks for that @Sly Saint. Happy to be corrected. But I meant the first 'proper'/full review. I thought the decision in 2011 was that they looked at the issue & decided than no 'proper' review was needed- ie PACE influenced them to determine that no review needed to be made, and to keep them in...