Quite a nice workaround that evidence-based medicine has. A similar ruling should apply to Jon Stone's neurosymptoms.org website. But it's OK to hype invalid claims in EBM, things you can't do in advertising. No need to advertise if you can promote fake clinical evidence, however. It's marketing in itself.
This is exactly the same. I mean literally, they use the BPS model to justify their pseudoscience, because both are the same pseudoscience. But it doesn't seem to bother anyone in healthcare. Just like it doesn't bother the LC deniers that trolls and antivaccine folks agree with them all the way.
I'd love to see more of that. There are a lot of similar marketing claims for CBT made by private clinics. Of course someone can probably simply copy-paste the whole thing and call it The butterfly method and get around it.
You are 100% correct and I’ve noticed it is the neuro journals focusing on FND that seem to be almost 100% only abstract accessibility pre paywall.
and who knows what the actual truth is in the ‘research’ vs the claims in the abstract because these are not the normal format snd are method light snd manifesto heavy.
I think so badly there is a case to say that these journals using abstracts not having to be accurate to research and the paywalls in this ways means it is very much just being used as advertising and propaganda NOT for ‘the paper underneath’ but for nonsense ideological based actions to be done by eg GPs - without anyone being able to check if there is even attempt at evidence backing it up. Saying someone could pay s fortune to click through and see the paper has no method and is nonsense really isn’t a get out if hail if the abstract is basically in evidenced and doesn’t make it clear as they know most readers won’t go through to find that out.