How do you justify harming the majority because you have anecdotal evidence of benefit for a minority? It is a fundamental of evidenced based medicine that the threshold for accepting evidence of harm should be considerably lower than the threshold for assuming benefit and advocating universal application of an intervention, yet here we are seeing a complete reversal of this.
If they genuinely believed in science they would be accepting the contradictions of their approach and delay any intervention until they have established a way of avoiding harm, a way of distinguishing the minority who might possibly benefit from the majority who will with a level of probability be harmed. What we are seeing is medicine based on personal beliefs no different to the approach of unevidenced ‘alternative’ practitioners or snake oil salesmen.
That's why I asked which version of the review was in place in 2011. NICE Guideline 2007 right up to what should have been a publication date of the revised Guideline publication date of 18 October 2021.
NHS told to act to stop ME deaths. Channel 4 News. Cochrane is procured, in part, through arm's length funding from the DHSC and this review is in mental health.
Ignoring the Alarms
Ignoring the alarms: How NHS eating disorder services are failing patients | Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO) 2019
The Royal College of Psychiatry, eventually, responded with this which also included Pervasive Refusal Syndrome May 2022 (updated Oct 2023)
college-report-cr233-medical-emergencies-in-eating-disorders-(meed)-guidance.pdf
29 June 2023 NHS eating disorder services - House of Lords Library
To ask His Majesty’s Government, further to the publication of the report by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman ‘Ignoring the alarms: How NHS eating disorder services are failing patients’, in December 2017, what progress has been made in relation to NHS eating disorder services.
The
NHS states that eating disorders are mental health conditions where people use the “control of food to cope with feelings and other situations”. The NHS states that eating disorders include:
- anorexia nervosa: trying to control your weight by not eating enough food, exercising too much, or doing both
- bulimia: losing control over how much you eat and then taking drastic action to not put on weight
- binge-eating disorder (BED): eating large portions of food until you feel uncomfortably full
- other specified feeding or eating disorder (OSFED): an eating disorder with symptoms that do not exactly fit the other disorders
Not our fault, gov'na.
I also suspect that the question in the House of Lords above, together with the PHSO report published by the House of Commons on the same day
is what lay at the heart of the 'anomalies' paper in July 2023 while Maeve Boothby O'Neill's Inquest was still awaited, because she wasn't a child.
Anomalies in the review process and interpretation of the evidence in the NICE guideline for chronic fatigue syndrome and myalgic encephalomyelitis | Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry
Publication history
- Received September 25, 2022
- Accepted May 3, 2023
- First published July 10, 2023.
- Online issue publication November 15, 2023
See also pervasive refusal syndrome (rare)
https://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/docs/default-source/events/2021/faculties-and-sigs/child-and-adolescent/poster---k-salucci---cap-trainees-21.pdf?sfvrsn=c44100ab_2
That's the painful lesson here: they don't. Science is a process, and that process leads them away from where they are, it shows them they are wrong. So they don't care for it and ignore it entirely. We're seeing it happening all over again with LC, every bit of evidence is cherry-picked and anything that contradicts the popular narrative is ignored.
A case of pervasive refusal syndrome related to COVID19 | BJPsych Open | Cambridge Core 21 June 2021.
Proof, if any more were needed, that both the Government and the medical profession
still view this illness as primarily a mental health condition with absolutely no evidence whatsoever - because a Regulation 28 PFD report was not sent to Cochrane.
But, as Trish says
I wish Cochrane would be open about their reasons for their about face and republication of the Larun review. Who persuaded them of what, and on what grounds? Did they even read the harms evidence we submitted, or Michiel Tack's detailed critique that they themselves published on their website and said would be taken into account in the new review?
I haven't received a direct response from either of my complaints to the DHSC either. They just published the responses to the consultation on 19 December, just outside the response time for the complaint, and 3 days after Cochrane changed the date on the Larun et al 2019 review.
I hope this isn't too higgelty piggelty to read, but these are my from my notes over the last year and my thought processes aren't too clear at the moment.
