METRIC (UK) Royal College of GPs' online course on ME/CFS

I thought I saw one version that indicated it had been reviewed in 2018. But now I can't find that version. Did anyone else see that, or did I make it up?

Added: Found it. Here is the version that indicates it was reviewed in April 2018:

http://elearning.rcgp.org.uk/course/info.php?id=93

And yet it still quotes PACE as if nothing has changed in the last three years. What a joke.

 

Yes, I think that is crucial. As soon as any doubtful claims go in it can be shot down in half a minute by the usual 'advisors'. It needs to stick to solid evidence - which at present is almost all negative.

 

Yes - it has April 2018 as the review date on the RCGP Learning site:

http://elearning.rcgp.org.uk/course/info.php?id=93

 

That suggests a review without revision at that point so nothing in the text itself.

 

Wilshire et al was published the month before--in March. A review that does not take that into account is absurd.

 

Sorry to keep on about this, but NICE review has referenced the following too.

NHSHEALTHAND WORK.org stuff.

( My emphasis)

The newly uploaded website states,

"Information for healthcare professionals, employers and employees providing the current evidence on managing and supporting employees with chronic fatigue syndrome."
This had a review date booked in 2011 and it was never done.

 

Absurdity is a bit like infinity David. If you already have infinity adding another infinity makes no difference.

 

'BMJ Best Practice: Chronic Fatigue Syndrome 2018' replaces 'NHS Choices Map of Medicine for CFS/ME (NHS Choices , October, 2011)' in the two guidelines sections - that seems to be the only updated material from a quick comparison.

 

But Jo, what if you add absurdity to infinity?

 

and all the PACE and NICE stuff seems exactly the same.

 

I thought I'd post Tuller's piece on the FINE trial as useful context to Wearden's work and the RCGP's decision that she should be leading their attempts to educate GPs about ME/CFS: http://www.virology.ws/2015/11/09/t...-sister-trial-been-disappeared-and-forgotten/

Worth reading for anyone who has not already read it.

 

Then you have a Monty Python sketch.

 

We would definitely need to work with them, to have editor-level rights for some at least and anyway this should be a coordinated effort so the more participation we have the better it will turn out. I haven't put more thought than this yet, just adding on recent comments that suggest it would be a worthwhile project and that it's the best medium I can think of.

 

An ouroboros of bullshit, aka a thing of beauty.

 

Heya!

The MPs were fully briefed and even while we cannot foresee what sort of discussions might take place during a HOC debate, we tried our best to brief them on these aspects. As you can see from our briefing, we were very very clear on the necessary definitions and distinctions re BPS Most (most!!) of the chamber did understand this and therefore, made their statements

 

Since when does not being active make ME worse? That list really makes it sound as if they are framing ME as a mental illness. Also note that there's no mention of relapses lasting years or being permanent, it's as if they are trying to erase severe ME as a physical illness.

 

They have already framed CFS/ME as being a mental illness at the start (as in the post by @DigitalDrifter)

"I don’t really want to make the diagnosis because I don’t feel there’s an awful lot of help I can give them."

"I’m rather cautious about making the diagnosis until it’s very clear that you’ve excluded other causes. I’d want to check that they’re not depressed or anxious or in a state of secondary gain."

The other causes could be that they are "depressed or anxious" or malingerers in "secondary gain" - this puts the idea in the head of GPs that other causes are likely to be psych ones or malingering dishonesty.

They are also being told that there is little that they can do to help.

GP's are being taught in this section at the start that the module to fix these ideas in their head for the rest.

 

I'm so sick of this argument. It's a thought-terminating cliché. There are hundreds of health problems for which there is no help, some with minimal impact, some terminal. It's not a real issue. The only rational response is to help with the impact and do research, which is what is usually done, not sabotage an entire disease over an ego trip.

Of course it only makes sense from the perspective of treating it as a condition in which the only problem is a false belief that one has a disease, which is exactly why this argument is made. It's conversion disorder that pretends it's not. That's completely unethical and guaranteed disaster when it is done with zero accountability.

 

Since the module cannot be archived on wayback is there some other way to archive this info for posterity?