Healthwise to "retire the GET/CBT topics" from medical content

And boom! Just like that.

A Healthwise rep says their WebMD account manager had already been in contact with WebMD about updating to the latest Healthwise product version (so it sounds like the issues extend beyond just ME/CFS).

They'll check and let me know the status of this.

 

Wow, @Webdog, that's amazing!

 

Every dog has his day.

 

@Webdog

Dogged

 

Your a one man fact spreading machine

 

I got an email (non)response from WebMD after I asked them to update their obsolete Healthwise ME/CFS (2011) and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (2015) content.

Edit: Note my personal email is separate from Healthwise's own efforts to get WebMD updated (no update on that at this time).

 

Every dog has his day is right!! Brilliant @Webdog and thank you!! It's so great to read positive news. Keep up the good work, sounds like you enjoy digging out those bones

 

I sent a message to Healthwise asking whether they will echo the findings of the recent Clinician Summit in Salt Lake City.

Healthwise could simply remove GET/CBT and say no more, like the CDC. Or Healthwise could echo the unanimous conclusion of the recent Clinician Summit: rejecting GET/CBT as "inappropriate and potentially harmful".

Will be very interested in their reply.

 

The response from Healthwise is that they don't know yet if they will follow the recommendations of the Clinician Summit (stating GET/CBT as inappropriate and potentially harmful). They are continuing to evaluate GET/CBT.

Healthwise's medical team and medical reviewers will be attending an upcoming conference, which I assume is the upcoming ME/CFS & Fibro clinician conference at Bateman Horne Center on April 27.

Healthwise also says some ME/CFS patients report being disappointed by the decision to remove GET/CBT, as these treatments were helpful for them.

 

I doubt it, its probably a statement they assume you can't disprove.

 

Or it could be certain individuals with vested interests using sockpuppet accounts? It wouldn't surprise me if people did this in the world of ME research and treatment to skew surveys or public opinion. It certainly happens in other areas of life.

For example, in the writing and publishing world, disreputable publishers and authors used to create fake accounts to review their own books on Amazon. Some authors would get into heated debates with readers who left bad reviews - and they had a number of pseudonyms to do this. Then Amazon changed its reviews policy and suddenly loads of five-star reviews vanished overnight.

If it happens in the relatively low-stakes world of publishing, then how much more likely is it in the life-or-death (literally) world of medicine and science?

 

It could be. In the end since science does not work on testimonials no matter their source, they can claim all they want it amounts to bupkis.

 

In a way, though, it does. How often do they trot out the line that the criticisms of PACE are published in 'low impact journals'? It's all about status and reputation. They also point to things like Cochrane as further proof that they're right. Then there are things like knighthoods--all of which serve as a kind of tacit endorsement of a person and their work by the establishment.

Science is slowly winning, but we shouldn't underestimate the power of politics and cronyism. That's why The Guardian continues to publish lies about ME patients--because Sir Simon is their mate. Besides, if they can give the impression that naysayers are a minority, then people are more likely to dismiss legitimate criticisms out of hand. Many people are lazy and prefer to side with their mates rather than doing the hard work themselves.

 

I agree, we have a very uphill battle

 

which according to http://www.thefreedictionary.com/bupkis means "A worthless amount; little or nothing"

Had to look it up!

 

There is a danger that promoting awareness of possible gains can lead to an organised push-back. IMO it can be worth trying to keep things quiet until everything has been finalised.

 

Thats probably the best way to handle tweeting MS from another thread

 

Healthwise has a new "eBrief" out, called "Behavior Change: Improving Outcomes by Guiding People to Success". I'm just going to type up a bit about it here because I don't feel like creating a new thread.

https://pages.questexweb.com/rs/294-MQF-056/images/8386.pdf?aliId=5084751842

This document gives some background as to why Healthwise was so reluctant to abandon PACE behavioral interventions for ME/CFS. The belief that behavioral science tells us that chronic diseases are largely preventable/treatable by behavioral changes. It should also serve as a caution, as we are well aware of the flaws in many behavioral studies.

This eBrief shows what an uphill battle those with ME/CFS still have. This is a glimpse at the immediate future of medicine. A dramatic increase in behavioral treatments for chronic diseases, with a corresponding reduction in medical treatments.

Medicine believes it has solved the major bacterial and viral diseases. That what remains are chronic illnesses preventable/treatable by changing patient behavior.



We are in the position of proving to doctors that, unlike "heart disease, cancer, and COPD", ME/CFS is not caused by maladaptive behavior preventable/treatable by behavioral interventions (unless you want to call pacing a behavioral intervention). A full year after rejecting PACE, Healthwise still clung to the belief that graded exercise therapy (a behavioral treatment), must be appropriate for ME/CFS.



I'm not saying that changing behavior won't help many chronic diseases. Diabetes can certainly benefit from dietary changes. The danger is the misguided implication that all chronic diseases can be helped by behavioral changes. That ME/CFS might be improved by "motivational interviewing" or "change talk", which assumes the patient has the power to change their health. An ME/CFS patient can commit to increasing exercise (change talk), but that doesn't mean they can.


To behavioral medicine, patients are prevented from positive "Change Talk" by negative "Sustain Talk". But in the context of ME/CFS and exercise, "Sustain Talk" is not a lack of willingness to change, but a physical inability to do so. Do doctors understand this?



Sorry for the long ramble. But if you're like me and were wondering why some of your doctors are constantly pushing MECFS-inappropriate behavioral changes, and why some medical professionals firmly believe behavioral changes are preferable to/can replace actual medical treatment, this eBrief explains it all.

 

That image is interesting for showing how they are encouraged to interpret patients' words. The 'Change talk' words sounds to me like a patient submitting to a doctors recommendation, but it's presented as evidence of 'desire, ability, reason, need, commitment to change behaviour'... was that really all displayed there?!

 

Sorry if the link to the eBrief PDF got lost in all that text. The direct link is here:

https://pages.questexweb.com/rs/294-MQF-056/images/8386.pdf?aliId=5084751842

and the landing page to sign up for the eBrief is here:

https://pages.questexweb.com/FH-eBr...oSuccess-Healthwise-May2018-Registration.html