bicentennial
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Lovely to see the position assumed out in the open defining itself at last
Quite possibly scoring an own goal while competing for contracts
I guess the objections are to:
1. PEM warranting exemption from the fringe rehab program which insists on treating 2 different cohorts, maximising its subsidy, so it must:
1a) get its Guideline to include both cohorts - then point out the incompatibilitiy of one program fixated on fringe rehab for both cohorts
1b) probably present the contrived nordic paper that PEM does not change outcomes in this rehab program - so no reason for exemption
I look forward to the quality control applied to evaluate the highly organised nordic PEM evidence. I guess the only marketable solution to this incompatible anomaly is:
- separate 2 Guidelines and 2 separate programs, removing the ME/CFS subsidy from the protesting fringe rehab program
2. I guess its 2nd objection is to the statement that this rehab program did not suit all patients - no one method or program suited all patients - so:
- this rehab program cannot keep its precious, highly treasured contract monopoly on the whole subsidy (needing expansion on post-pandemic scales to include for Long Covid). No more monopoly - tough heh
The same statement came out of Scotland - courtesy of Dr Janet Scott's top-level asessment: this rehab program does not suit some patients
The necessary ME/CFS program and the necessary fatigue program remain incompatible. There will be an arbiter because the fringe rehab program cannot tolerate losing its contract on ME/CFS. That is its case.
Quite possibly scoring an own goal while competing for contracts
I guess the objections are to:
1. PEM warranting exemption from the fringe rehab program which insists on treating 2 different cohorts, maximising its subsidy, so it must:
1a) get its Guideline to include both cohorts - then point out the incompatibilitiy of one program fixated on fringe rehab for both cohorts
1b) probably present the contrived nordic paper that PEM does not change outcomes in this rehab program - so no reason for exemption
I look forward to the quality control applied to evaluate the highly organised nordic PEM evidence. I guess the only marketable solution to this incompatible anomaly is:
- separate 2 Guidelines and 2 separate programs, removing the ME/CFS subsidy from the protesting fringe rehab program
2. I guess its 2nd objection is to the statement that this rehab program did not suit all patients - no one method or program suited all patients - so:
- this rehab program cannot keep its precious, highly treasured contract monopoly on the whole subsidy (needing expansion on post-pandemic scales to include for Long Covid). No more monopoly - tough heh
The same statement came out of Scotland - courtesy of Dr Janet Scott's top-level asessment: this rehab program does not suit some patients
The necessary ME/CFS program and the necessary fatigue program remain incompatible. There will be an arbiter because the fringe rehab program cannot tolerate losing its contract on ME/CFS. That is its case.
Last edited: