Search results

When they have poor follow-up, they seem to overlook this and tend to report results without taking them into account. This was what Brian and I found with the CBT paper published by Chalder, Wessely and company based on clinic data.

This is one of the many papers Professor Crawley had to correct based on the investigation that the Health Research Authority requested be undertaken.

Ha! I'd forgotten about that part.

The details can get fuzzy. They started recruiting at 60. Nine months in, recruitment was not great so they relaxed it and moved it up to 65 so they'd get more patients. That was "ok" at first because 75 was the protocol threshold for "improvement" on the SF-36 and 85 was the threshold for...

Of course this is totally ridiculous. It was not a "preliminary" trial. These people are just a disgrace.

Phil is a very decent, thoughtful guy who has never as far as I have seen tried to do any more than describe his own experience. He does not try to extrapolate it to others or tell others what to do--but offers his own experience as a pathway he managed to be lucky enough to navigate. I haven't...

No, it arose out of the film but was not used in the film.

I always wondered how that "friends of Dorothy" thing came about. Speculation has been about Wizard of Oz as the inspiration, but not sure if that's been proven.

it had been around but once the Trump presidency started, everyone in US began using the term "gaslighting"

It would be interesting to know when he decided that the GET he does is not GET as he hears about it. Since that is the GET that is described in PACE, it would be interested if he has ever previoulsy said that PACE GET didn't represent what he thinks of as GET. Or has he actually cited PACE as...

Oops!

Exactly. They justified it on the basis of their clinical experience, and also on the basis that the results with the changed outcomes were more consistent with the earlier trila results. In other words, they based PACE on the early trials and then changed PACE outcomes so the results would...

it means they have a hard time, like most people would, when having to deal with respected experts presumed to know what they're talking about.

No. they could easily be referring to the stakeholder version.

this has seemed to me to be a huge part of the issue--not just among journalists, but among other academics/scientists in UK, who feel unable or not in a position to challenge these august people.

Yes, it's not really comparable to the climate change "debate" in that the pro-CBT/GET studies are in high-profile journals that continue to defend them, and high-powered academic institutions behind these investigators. Journalists are not really equipped to adjudicate these complex disputes...

especially given the pubished reports based on clinic data seem to be scientifically very questionable, like the Psych Medicine pro-CBT piece that included Wessely and Chalder as co-authors.

There was a slide show in which Wearden described the illness as like very bad jet lag.

Sometimes that's likely true, but I find as a non-patient when I try to explain to other non-patients, it often really is lack of understanding and not disbelief. it is really literally harder for people unfamiliar with it to understand what it means than if you say, "I have kidney cancer."

really? maybe that's different usage. I consider nurses, therapists etc also to be clinicians.