Search results

It makes one wonder how they characterise people who have a wholly unrealistic expectation of recovery. Presumably that is OK.

This could have come from Arthur Cott in 1985. It probably did. He proposed multidisciplinary teams to deal with illness behaviour. And the potential harm of overtesting. I'm sure this has been known in some circles all along. They just never mentioned it.

That's all right then. All it will take is an MRI scan and...voila..therapies.

There is something dreadfully fishy about it all. You can see why "colonic lavage", by Royal appointment was a favoured treatment of AfME members in those early days. Allegedly.

Will the laughter be directed at the Lightning Process practitioner ...or the organisers?

Well there would have to be three things wouldn't there? It is stylistic convention.

would there not be need of a third to produce the authentic effect?

Sounds to me exactly like cricket. Major disappointment. Incompetent leadership. Lack of basic skills.

It is interestingto see Alastair Milla r in that Guardian article in effect calling upon the "therapeutic nihilism" excuse. Plus ca change.

You mean it has taken until 2021 to do a trial on the treatments proposed by Arthur Cott in 1985.

it's when they get round to considering the alleged pre-virus symptoms that it will become interesting.

When you consider that one of the people of whom we know apparently works as a post doctoral fellow with the Centre for medical ethics at Oslo, should we be surprised?

The benefit, surely, is in getting difficult patients out of the door and having someone else persuade them that, if they don't improve, it's their own fault.

I wonder when they briefed the poodles.

There will probably be evidence for the asssumption. These days, who worries if there is more evidence against it?

perhaps they would do better to get an economist to conduct a cost/benefit analysis.

One sometimes gets the feeling that there are people in universities who do not have a very good eye, or ear, for language. They do not indicate how, or where, the digit is to be be utilised for maximum effect.

Perhaps its an old English "s", which would make the word "witshout", which everyone knows is Shakespearean for a loud joke.

The problem is that this was apparent to any rational person in about 1990 and was pointed out at the time. It didn't do any good. From that one must draw one's own conclusions.

This seems to assume that people who are returned to work are, in fact, well enough to return, and capable of maintaining their work once they have returned to it. It ignores the possible gaming of the system by the DWP and insurance companies to return people to work to reduce, or exclude...