Search results

What is really being described in this document is what happens when medicine fucks it up big time, and how they avoid accountability by blaming the patient for it.

suggests associated with may predict could Enough said.

Yeah, that's what we need. Magic words and sentences. Because there is no such thing as incomplete understanding or insufficient techniques in biomedical medicine. Maybe because GPs are not the final word on accurate diagnosis of poorly understood conditions? You're in denial. No, I'm not...

Had a quick scan of the Scottish guidelines and they look good. :thumbup:

From Australia:

Avoid this as the patient will always hold the winning cards. News to me.

The messages from medicine on cardiac symptoms are completely contradictory. It is worse than even that. What they are really trying to say is that patients must do their own diagnosis. We are supposed to know if it is the 'right' kind of chest pain before we go to a clinic. If we get it wrong...

Not the best audio, but good enough. Otherwise a good talk. Broadly speaking they know their stuff, and have clearly listened to patients. :thumbup:

Another Australian media article on LC. Does include some predictable BPS/functional stuff from Prof Lloyd, but also other views, including a mention of ME/CFS. Behind a paywall, but here are some excerpts:

Falsification? We don't need no stinking falsification.

has developed a computerised CBT programme (Think, Feel, Do), an app for adolescents who self-harm (BlueIce), BlueIce™

Good thing that nobody is advocating that approach.

Whatever it takes. *shrugs*

And want to remain.

Thank you, @Robert 1973 :)

the amazing ability of a simple sugar pill or other non-pharmaceutical “fake intervention” to improve someone’s quality of life. 1. There is no amazing ability. 2. By "quality of life" he means short-term, highly manipulated, subjective self-report measures, without confirmation by adequate...

This is encouraging. The reality is starting to break through.

Technology-supported ACT shows promise for improving function and ACT process outcomes across a range of CHCs. And always will. Recommendations are provided to optimize technology-supported ACT for CHCs. Shouldn't they establish it does more than shows promise first?

'This letter shows that those at the heart of Government don't understand the condition at all.' And don't want to.

It is beyond dispute that the BPS mob have not changed their position at all post-NICE.