CEP Guest blog: NICE depression guideline – cautious optimism?

http://cepuk.org/2020/02/08/guest-b...EjH8IYSjTeztHESk1i7rP3-GmiJJDLLH3HDrNlaxR8M2c

 

The bolding of 'appear' is mine.

 

I had a quick look around this website for the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry, seems their sole mission is to campaign against the use of psychiatric drugs, nowhere though does it say what they think psychiatrists should be doing. They rightfully point out manipulation and burying of drug trial data but if they think that is bad they should see the trials for non-pharmaceutical treatments.

 

So... everything? Yeah, sounds about right. Literally all the things that matter are omitted. This is a chronic problem, caused largely by unhelpful beliefs about illness. Irony.

Patient engagement remains aspirational fiction, something medical authorities reject out of hand. The process almost seems incapable of producing useful things without being forced to and even then barely manages to put the effort.

This could be significant for us. The entire clinical paradigm is based on a bunch of cherry-picked and misleading trials and rejects all real-life outcomes since then as being significant, despite using the same outcome measures of patient self-reports, prefering the misleading cleanliness of experiments that fabricate an outcome over the messy reality of outcomes completely failing to live up to the conclusions made by these trials, and instead aligning with the underlying data often showing an utterly useless and fictitious paradigm.

Haha. Good one. It's nice to dream but it's better to treat reality the way it is, not the way it should be. There are several members of the ME NICE committee who have publicly asserted they support the current BPS paradigm and nothing else. Hell, NICE is even conflicted in our case for having waived the entire process in 2017 and having decided their outcome.

I'm not sure how "good" the news of managing to shame NICE into at least pretending to do the work they have to do rather than the ideology they prefer to fabricate. It shows the entire process to be so dysfunctional that it should be broken up entirely and remade from scratch. The whole point of experts is that they should not have to be shamed into working with reality instead of focusing exclusively on things they like.

When you have to work against the "experts" to solve a problem, you now have two problems to solve. Honestly the lack of progress in this field is clearly revealing that it is the field itself that is responsible for most of that failure. It's all beliefs, opinions, assumptions, biases and logical fallacies, none of which care about patient experience or outcomes. The solution is the problem to the solution to the problem.

 

it has always been my opinion that nice has only one goal and that is to reduce costs to assume there is no political aspect to this body would be very foolish .