Search results

No, you are wrong on that. That is exactly where the common usage comes from, because - although the common usage meaning has changed a bit - it was originally about predatory people using sh*tty mind games to "passively" abuse people. It's meaning has softened a bit now to often simply meant...

Correct.

I've never read this book and never want to, but I heard of it a long time back. As I understand it is a how-to book of gaslighting, as per original meaning from the film, to drive people to doubt their own sanity, and over time lose their sanity. NOTE: If mods decide best this not posted...

Maybe my fears have some grounding then ...

Evidence synthesis ... surely that cannot be as bad as it sounds? Took a quick look on Paul Garner's twitter page ... https://twitter.com/paulgarnerwoof?lang=en And noticed this ... Which then led me to here ... https://www.lstmed.ac.uk/centre-for-evidence-synthesis-in-global-health And...

He has his own particular knack doesn't he. :D

Sounds like GAS is the right description then.

Pretty incriminating I'd think.

How to brush aside the supposed independence of two organisations in one fell swoop.

Maybe Sharpe should read the PACE trial manual? From page 18 of "Manual for Therapists, COGNITIVE BEHAVIOUR THERAPY for CFS/ME" "According to this model, the symptoms and disability of CFS/ME are perpetuated predominantly by unhelpful illness beliefs (fears) and coping behaviours (avoidance)."

I second that.

That is an extremely common behaviour pattern of predatory personalities.

Especially if what Margaret Williams says is true (I imagine it is) that medics by law should be aware of the “totality of the evidence-base”. https://www.s4me.info/threads/legal-advice-for-nice-process.22135/page-2#post-369742

Which even if that is true, simply highlights that things have moved on a lot from 2005'ish, and reinforces why the new 2021 guideline is so desperately needed. If you, as a professor of psychiatry and expert in clinical trials, cannot answer that objectively, then what hope is there for...

What about the doctors within DwME, the individuals rather than the organisation?

As roller coasters go, this is one of the biggies. There is no choice but to go with the flow, but nonetheless we need to influence the flow as best we can. All we can do is our best. And I am absolutely confident that @Jonathan Edwards and others will be doing their utmost to get some of these...

Yes, that is a very useful insight into a journalist's perspective. But you have omitted to mention other scientists. What about some of them? ETA: I realise you did mention academics. But are there not specific scientists that could be engaged to speak up?

Accepted and understood. Nonetheless, if we do not cut newcomers a little bit of slack, at least initially, it just plays into the BPS crowd's hands, making us look like the stroppy 'activists' they claim us to be. We need to win journalists over.

Yes, it does indeed take time for things to sink in. From my own experience, I can be presented with a whole mass of highly salient material, and only so much of it will take hold initially. Not only might there be too much for one education session, but also there is a layering effect - insight...

[my bold] As always, obfuscating and playing down the grim fact hidden within those words "some patients do not benefit from these therapies". It is a sleight of words designed (yes I do mean 'designed') to give the impression that those who do not benefit, simply remain unchanged, and are no...