Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Improves Physical Function & Fatigue in Mild & Moderate CFS: A Consecutive RCT, 2021, Gotaas et al

"Funny" how these guys co-ordinate their media strategies, but are ready to whine about patient activism if we even say a word, not to forget if we coordinate something out of their unethical eyes.

Today they've had the text in Lancet, two articles in norwegian Dagbladet and Khrono, plus this one in Daily Express. In Norway the two journalists have covered these viewpoints positively for many years. They like to bring up David Tuller as a "patient activist" too, yet themselves use the same old journalists and newspaper contacts again and again.

I think David Tuller hit the nail on the head saying that the question they're asking is Freudian projection. Like Trump they accuse their opponents for what they themselves are guilty of. It's probably a "good" tactic for them because it makes less informed persons doubt what's true and not when two parties accuse eachother of the same thing. Experienced journalists and newspaper editors should really see through such cheap tricks, unless they for some mysterious reason choose not to see through it, of course.

Is keeping ME-science in the Medieval Ages more ideology than science? Aye, it is.
 
Straight from the horse's mouth: patient-hating charlatans.

But this is not politically correct, so ideologues works fine, and is just as accurate.

Although it is kind of funny to label Tuller a patient activist, when he is not a patient. The same term regardless of status, but then they don't recognize that we are sick, and so are not patients, so it's probably the same thing to them. I still have no idea what the "cause" is even supposed to be if we are not patients, but dismissing the existence of the cause while calling it activism anyway is typical of this kind of abuse of power and reactionary politics. You see the exact same happening right now in the US, it's not similar, it's identical.
 
It may have changed (although having read both this and the earlier version I am not sure how) but it is still a blatant marketing piece for CBT, using the updated NICE GL as a bad guy to make a point.

As such I personally see it as a deliberate attack upon both those with ME and any 'support' of any kind, at all, that is not CBT.
 
Wyva said:
Has some sort of full-scale attack started or are these just coincidences? Very problematic article:

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) in the UK published a new chronic fatigue syndrome guideline.

In full: https://www.express.co.uk/life-styl...symptoms-cbt-dizziness-sore-throat-joint-pain​
Click to expand...
​

It's M.E. Linda said:
See ME Association post (and following comments - ‘still not perfect, but, an improvement’).

A complaint was made to the Express by ForwardME, using the new NICE Guideline.

Click to expand...


Watch out UK members, Cambridgeshire Live published an article 24 February 2022

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/ne...rome-symptoms-signs-23202193#comments-wrapper

written by
Sophie ChristianSEO/trends writer
Jessica Knibbs
(12:09, 24 FEB 2022)

I have informed Cambridge ME Group and am now off to check what my local “Reach” newspaper may have published too.

I suggest we all need to check our local papers in the UK for this!
 
"The new guideline presents strengthened evidence, but a major shift in interpretation. How could this happen?"
Click to expand...

A layman can understand how it happened. NICE explains how this happened in "Evidence review A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, for additional explanations see "Consultation comments and responses 1 & 2".

https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/history

Brain fog effects me badly. Yet, I can easily read and see how NICE downgraded poorly designed studies. How NICE looked at long term results verses short term. There is no advanced math required to read and accept NICE's explanations. No advanced human biology required.

I don't think her question was asked in good faith.
 
Sly Saint said:
Outcome data collection was completed on September 26, 2013.

why has it taken this long to publish?

eta: 44% dropout
Click to expand...
This is an old thread, but I just read that this study is part of a phd and the disputas has been postponed due to illness by the candidate which explain why the study was published so long after it was carried out. The original timeframe was 2012-2015.

Some short info on this page, if one clicks the "Er kognitiv atferdsterapi god behandling for CFS/ME?" subheading.
 
Corrigendum: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Improves Physical Function and Fatigue in Mild and Moderate Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Consecutive Randomized Controlled Trial of Standard and Short Interventions.
Corrigendum: Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Improves Physical Function and Fatigue in Mild and Moderate Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Consecutive Randomized Controlled Trial of Standard and Short Interventions.
Name of all authors as they appear in the published original article (INSERT ONLY IF correcting author names or adding authors. Insert the correct version of the author list)
Affiliations of all authors as they appear in the published original version of the article (INSERT ONLY IF correcting affiliation(s) or adding affiliation(s). Insert the correct version of the affiliation(s))
Correspondence: Merethe Eide Gotaas merethe.eide@gmail.com
Keywords: same as original article

Corrigendum on: Gotaas ME, Stiles TC, Bjørngaard JH, Borchgrevink PC and Fors EA (2021) Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Improves Physical Function and Fatigue in Mild and Moderate Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A Consecutive Randomized Controlled Trial of Standard and Short Interventions. Front. Psychiatry 12:580924. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.580924

Incorrect Conflict of Interest
In the published article, there was an error in the Conflict of Interest statement. One of the authors did not disclose commercial links with a company where the study took place. The correct Conflict of Interest statement appears below.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Tore C. Stiles was the owner of Coperio, a commercial company, from 2005 to May 2022. The study took place at the Coperio Health Centre. Stiles claims that the Coperio Health Centre is part of the public health system and does not treat patients commercially. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
After investigation, the journal has no reason to believe that the scientific conclusions of the article are affected in any way. The original article has been updated.
Click to expand...
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.1122220/full
 
Sean said:
"patient activist"

What's an equivalent term we could tag them with?

Serious question.
Click to expand...

Activist. That thing they do where they muddle the discussion by accusing us of what they are doing works both ways. Activist researchers fits a popular narrative and gives the impression they are producing evidence to fit the narrative they are selling. Which in this case is true, which makes it even more powerful.
 
Trish said:
Of note - the waiting list control group was only followed up for 16 weeks, when they were offered CBT. So there is no basis for comparison at the promised one year follow up.
Therefore the study is only showing a short term therapist/placebo effect.

I note also that some had only been sick for 6 months, and the SF36 PF average at the start was over 50, so, in my view at the very mild end of the spectrum of ME, since the definitions require 50% reduction in function. I know this doesn't translate across as 50 on the SF-36 PF scale, but I suspect it's pretty close. Even when my ME was at its mildest and I was still working, I reckon my SF-36 PF was around 40 when not in PEM.

Despite all that the 'improvement' on SF-36 averaged under 15, which can be easily achieved by 5 minutes watching Graham's video.

https://www.s4me.info/threads/me-analysis-the-3-pace-videos-factsheet.6106/
Click to expand...

With Mild ME, but being quite bad at pacing, I got a SF36 PF of 35%. I might be closer to 40-45% now because I understand my physical energy envelope a little better, or perhaps I improved slightly.
 
Kalliope said:
Nina E. Steinkopf: A sad day for science

quote:
Despite evidence of a financial conflict of interest; after nearly two years the journal Frontiers has decided to believe in the authors and publish a worthless corrigendum. What happened to their high standard of research integrity?

https://melivet.com/2023/03/05/a-sad-day-for-science/
Click to expand...
ooh, Retraction Watch is sharing Nina E. Steinkopf's article. Great that they're following this!

https://mailchi.mp/retractionwatch/...tion-frontiers-deception-detection?e=[UNIQID]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom