Who said: no getting back to work or drop in benefits after GET / CBT?

@JaimeS, I haven't looked at the Belgian study.

"Benefits increased globally"? It looks like you're saying the UK study, (PACE?) did not compare GET, CBT, pacing and "specialist care" re return to work, getting off benefits etc. I'm confused.

I know they manipulated the "recovery" data, but didn't they at some point look at return to work, and getting off benefits? Or did they dismiss this as not important, because they saw the outcome didn't reflect their theory?

 

Thanks @JaimeS.

Secondary gains: family, friends, and physicians who frequently berate, dismiss, and neglect us. The BPSers and their friends in government made it open season on pwME many decades ago. People can say and do many things to us with a certain amount of impunity, because we are so maligned by "leaders" in our society.

The desperate struggle to find medical help, understanding and improvement.
Constant or frequent struggles to attain disability benefits, and keep them. The frequent task and expense to provide objective proof of disability. The loss of, and hope of a better life. Loss of health, career, home, loved ones, activitiy, respect, status etc.

All "wonderful secondary gains".

Often pwME have no choice but to see thes "therapists" who seem to hate them. Yonks ago I saw a psychologist who spoke very negativley about people with Fibro. And, yet this person probably saw pwFM and happily took their money.

 

Is this explicitly stated or does it need some work to show this (like in this thread)? This is valuable.

 

Wow, awesome, thank you very much!

 

Don't know how I missed this.

No, they looked at it. That's the paper I'm referencing a few posts back.

The issue is, everyone in every group increased going on benefits. They themselves admitted that there wasn't any significance in the differences between groups on that.

However, the way they arranged the data made it pretty clear that there WAS significant difference in how many turned to private insurers during the 12 month period after GET or CBT.

 

Thanks @JaimeS.

Interesting. My understanding of private disability insurance is that a person has to be in good health, and signed up first, before disabling illness, to then apply to this private company, and hopefully qualify for assistance.

I guess they were already signed up for private disability prior to their illness, and
post trial, turned to these private insurers, and not the government. Wouldn't make the private insurers too happy. Wonder if some of the BPSers had to do some explaining to these private companies who also hired them to disallow claims.
I wonder if the trial selection criteria
included not being on any government disability assistance.

 

Two more "secondary gains" from the sickness role, and ME: loss of a sense of belonging, and a loss of identity.

 

didn't know where to put this; in the recent survey done for NICE I spotted this quote from a participant:
"‘Assessor viewed attendance at CBT as a way of being able to get out of the house and reduced award’ "

can't win

eta:
another one from GET participant
"
‘Taking part almost certainly in their eyes is meaning you’re able to go back to work. Now going [sic] to lose my mobility car. As deemed fit’
‘Led them to think am capable of more than actually [sic] am’

eta2:
‘Because I completed the course the DWP claimed I
must be cured and no longer sick. I was refused benefits for
CFS’