at least they now say they can't be sure if GET is or isn't harmful.
I think this could potentially be challengable. It is not about being 'sure', highly confident. When dealing with something being unsafe for humans it is the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' that matters, not certainty. The Boeing 737 MAX will have been grounded on this basis at the time - more might have been killed in the interval if high confidence had been insisted upon. (But it wasn't, because that's how it works).
It is true, at this time we lack high confidence evidence (scientifically speaking, I emphasise!) of harms from GET, but there is a plethora of medium confidence evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt there is a safety concern - this is all the bar should need to be set at, until further investigations can be done, or it is accepted the intervention is no longer viable.
In another post I've just written ...
https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-lif...19-naomi-whittingham.11379/page-2#post-206144
... where I wrote ...
The tipping point into harm may not yet be evident at the output, but may already be committed to and irreversible due to inputs already applied.
Basically if BSP'ites try to convince that GET can be safely applied to pwME, with the notion of stopping if they look to be getting into trouble, it shows how ignorant they are of these things, where they need to be highly cognisant of them. By the time a pwME may start to show any clues of harms due to GET, it may be way too late, and the tipping point may already have been reached, with further evidence of that still rolling through their physiology and not yet visible.
I say that if anyone tries to assert GET is safe if done by a 'qualified' practitioner, the first thing to challenge is how they pull off the trick of seeing the invisible. Waiting until the slightest visible signs may well be way too late.
ETA: Not quite sure now if being "beyond reasonable doubt" is the threshold or just there existing "a reasonable doubt". There is a difference in level of evidence.