Search results

You can see why Wessely/White/Chalder/the Dutch etc opted for fear avoidance and deconditioning, really. Or should we call it, the "easy task". Because what you've described sounds awfully like a "hard task". Thank you so much.

Is the term "preference" used in neuroscience/cognitive psychology/related fields to refer to an involuntary thing the brain chooses independent of its owner? Because for lay people, preference implies volition.

Well done on getting answers to your questions, @andrewkq , very valuable. Just highlighting bits from the quotes in @andrewkq 's post above: From Treadway's paper - the creator of the task: From Nicholas Madian's answer:

Hm. Just looked at my tilt test and my cerebral blood flow measure (near infra-red spectroscopy) didn't drop till my systolic was in the 40s. So, not gonna hold my breath for this.

Oh, are you reading subtitles/captions? Or is there a link to an actual transcript of the whole thing somewhere?

Well, they view all of them - GET, CBT and Activity Management, in their pre-2021 forms - as graded activity therapies. GET is the only one confined to physical activities only, but they do include things like gardening or sitting up in there, depending on people's level, as well as...

Thanks Andrew. I'd be very happy for someone else to submit it. Just post on here if submitting so that it only gets submitted once. So many on this thread pointed out that the hard task would be really hard for them, or harder for patients than for healthies, and for me, that's the crux of...

Sorry for the delay, @andrewkq. I wasn't sure what to say. Here's what I would have suggested: You measured what you call effort preference using the proportion of hard tasks chosen in the EEfRT task, and you found that people with ME/CFS chose fewer hard tasks than healthy volunteers...

Can you direct me to the transcript?

My next sentence was important! My point was that the MS video was posted on what looks like a national MS patient organisation site, and I don't think you would see that on a national ME/CFS patient organisation site. You would expect it from a group like Recovery Norge.

I think they got obsessed with us because we stubbornly can't comply and don't improve despite being, in their minds, needlessly disabled.

Totally agree. Their argument in that editorial was mind-blowing. For anyone who can't access it https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4774.long, Turner-Stokes and Wade argue that integrated/holistic/person-centred rehabilitation was "basic common sense" NICE "fail to understand the...

This may already be posted upthread, apologies if so, but I just stumbled on the therapist manual for the GETSET trial. I hadn't seen it before. Thought others might be interested. https://huisartsvink.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/getset-therapists-manual-with-appendices.pdf

Hoping someone can help me out here. What I'm a bit confused about in this discussion is the idea that one or more of these is true: plans are new the agreed nature of plans is new scheduling activity is new All of these are part and parcel of what pwME/CFS have been enduring for a long time...

Well, the intention to improve someone's functioning is laudable, but the belief that those attempts are effective, and universally so, is on shakier ground. There's massive support in healthcare and the public for therapies and rehabilitation. And at least some of that is with good reason -...

Breaking down this argument, they propose: A is central to R in the set N, which is a subset of P. (A=Activity, R=Rehabilitation, N=Neurological disorders, P=other physical conditions where activity is helpful) So A is central to R(P). ∴ evidence of harm from A in ME/CFS required in order to...

They do say this:

@Maat here's more in case it helps, as these are massive unwieldy documents: The British Society Of Rehabilitation Medicine's comments start on p.99 of this 1137-page document https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/ng206/documents/consultation-comments-and-responses, which is one of two consultation...

Yes, and those specifications are a big improvement, a sea-change of an improvement. But the guideline does suggest that flexible GET is safe and can be beneficial, while fixed GET is to be dumped, and as Jonathan said above, there's no evidence for any increases being advisable. Given my...

For example, see the stakeholder comments on the draft NICE guidelines: (Interestingly, the British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine is against exercise for exercise’s sake, and its comments would seem to suggest that it would be against GET, but for the approach to activity increases in CBT...