Search results

"probably" ? This seems like another backtrack in line with the current trend. Previously they have always asserted it is safe if properly administered.

Ahh ... that's because you do not have a random-sentence-demystifier app :).

I do sometimes wonder if they really have the scientific nous to distinguish between the two. As if to them it is "so obvious" the relationship must be causal ... they just get mental dropouts of those rather important bits of scientific reasoning along the way. It's bordering on weird.

I think Hammond may have a random-sentence-generator app.

Of course.

Pretty dumb really. True, hurt does not necessarily equal harm, but that in no way absolves people from properly checking that it actually is not. I detest the way these people very consciously exploit the ambiguity of their language.

I think such inactivity often persists until a tipping point is reached, after which you can get a positive feedback effect (those wanting to speak out but scared to, becoming more emboldened as more speak out, and so on ...). I wonder if the BPS people strongly fear that this guideline could be...

Yes, I think they are totally locked up inside there own psycho-science bubble, and are quite incapable of seeing outside/beyond it, like the flea on the camel's back. Their whole clinical experience revolves around the notion of mental conditions that can be influenced by cognitive /...

Interesting wording.

There are certain personality types who exhibit a key behaviour: accuse others of the characteristics they themselves strongly exhibit, and then seek to gain the high ground by claiming to decry such characteristics, and to claim how they want to set things right again. You only have to look to...

And very especially disregarded when egregiously misapplied to physiological conditions. I truly believe there should, within the medical system, be some kind of enforceable sanity check applied to psychological trials if there is a non-trivial chance the condition under test is potentially...

I expect she likely had better justifications for her changes :).

This is a huge relief to me that that S4ME will have a voice, because I truly believe that is really important for all pwME.

It was in common use within forums for victims of such predatory behaviour 20+ years ago, and may well be where it emerged from into more popular usage later.

Yes, they they seem to do the opposite. Examine trials all seeking to validate the same flawed hypothesis, and then set them up as being independent verifications of each other. I don't think they even perceive the need for anything else, because this approach of theirs convinces them there is...

Maybe just a trick of the gaslight.

No, that would have been like people speaking of doing the hoovering before Hoover came into being.

Sorry, I misunderstood - no. Though even if the term had been in general use before the film, it would not have fitted the narrative to have used it within the film. But, no, I'm sure you are right, general usage of the term no doubt emerged significantly later.

From page 154 of the GET therapists' manual: That is all there is on the subject. The same is on page 55 of the GET participants' manual. And if you look at the previous section for each manual, relating to normal reactions to exercise, it becomes abundantly clear they had no acknowledgement...

That last sentence clarifies completely that Phil was not doing GET or any derivative of it. As I understand it GET urges you to not give in to your symptoms but to push through them. It sounds like that in this case sensible pacing led to a virtuous circle, over time. Or that he was going to...