L.P. reported mentioned in parliament in May?

Just wanting to query the facts in this post from MEA fb 'visitor's posts - i wasnt aware of LP being mentioned in parliament since the January debate... does anyone know anything about the veracity of this?



I'd like to support Jo & point out that regardless of whether it was "reported in parliament' - which i doubt, an unblinded study with subjective endpoints & huge ethical problems doesnt 'prove' anything, but i not up to getting into it on fb. I'd love to check hansard for that day but i'm not up to it.

 

This probably relates to a parliamentary question and answer referred to on another thread

https://www.s4me.info/threads/uk-house-of-lords-house-of-commons-questions.707/page-15#post-170308

 

Ah ok thanks for that Chris.

I wish i could let Jo know that what was said in parliament was actually .... (my bolding - highlighting the doubt expressed) if only for her own sake when in discussion with her friend.

Anyone who feels up to it & wants to, pls do let her know, or i guess even posting a link to this & the thread Chris links to abve might be helpful.

 

you or someone might also like to point out that Crawley herself said that there was no evidence that the course(LP) would work or that it was not harmful if undertaken on its own.

see this post
https://www.s4me.info/threads/trial...is-“effective”-really.9586/page-3#post-174737

 

But it would never be integrated into medical care, being obvious quackery and all, so basically it's "effective", whatever that means, except it can't ever be used properly, but it's still recommended.

This is also an issue with PACE, where there was supposedly this "super training", very expensive and extensive on the therapists, though it's unclear what since there is literally nothing special there, that could never be replicated on the scale of the problem. So PACE-style "treatment" is also "effective" but impossible to implement.

Yet it is still recommended in official policy. So I don't think that's a problem for the likes of Crawley, just a way to preempt inevitable legal issues where they could say they warned about it despite having promoted it in a way that could not reasonably take those limitations into account. The idea seems to be it would be unofficially recommended but not actually prescribed, with zero accountability.

So basically talking out of both ends to cover all grounds, but in practice only the back-end carries weight.