Search results

Is he a fucking ignoramus, does he know how many people have been sick for decades and ended up taking their own lifes because of the prejudice, blame, utter contempt and incompetence of BPS doctors whose treatments DO NOT work.

Yes usually its the inability to understand the difference between "science" and observing whether the the scientific method was followed. If its been done by scientists, "its science Bro".

The problem is the kind of logic that says: "Just cos you cant prove something scientifically doesn't mean it don't work". Usually there is already a belief in the thing in the first place, like homeopathy or faith healing, or psychic mediums or cosmic ordering or positive thinking or reiki...

I bet they try to dump the rest of us in the BDD MUS nonsense and claim that they have now refined the GET CBT category down to the people who can benefit from it.

I think its more observable that they claim the tested treatments work on all criterias of ME to maximize bums on seats in their clinics by using "evidence based treatments" from their poorly designed trials. When a stage hypnotist or a psychic medium recruits from an audience is he going to...

I'm not even sure I would want to see clinics "teaching" pacing. They will just call it CBT and we will be back to square one because the BPS crowd will run them claiming only they know how we should "behave".

This is true because if she claimed they decided not to use school attendance as an outcome because attendance improvement doesn't necessarily prove reduced disability that may only be useful if she is not hiding reduced attendance overall or no change in attendance. Reduced or no change in...

Personally I think listing CBT as a treatment for specific illnesses is as unethical as picking a faith based belief and telling people to have sessions with the spiritual person within that belief. That's totally down to individuals if they chose to do that but it should not be a prescribed...

Also if they didn't report the results or provide the data separately for the two claimed different definitions why did they bother using two definitions.

This is my whole point. To declare you diagnosed with CFS to dump you they ignore all the observable neurological signs from the examination and fail to document them in your medical files hence it adds to the argument that you are medically unexplained and disqualifies you from testing. Yet...

Its going to be a real challenge for NICE to review issues with the PACE trial and continue with the current recommendations but at the same time by admitting PACE is flawed they will be admitting peer reviewed published work in the Lancet funded by the DWP is garbage. As NICE have already...

The thing is as the BPS crowd think they can just look at someone and declare them x y or z they could have been excluding left and right to narrow the entry participants down to a cohort they could claim to be Oxford for their trials but anyone who turned up with walking difficulty etc could...

How exactly did they report on the exclusions in PACE and were the exclusions done on objective measures or subjective ones and also could they overrule such patients previous diagnosis and did they test for or ask for proof of previous tests before excluding people.

If the Oxford Criteria (an all encompassing fatigue criteria) is just a principal complaint of fatigue exactly how could anyone not meet the criteria. Is it being claimed that those people didn't have fatigue, or they did have fatigue but they also had more than just fatigue therefore they were...

Maybe this is the problem in essence, Esther Crawleys own school attendance and qualifications up to doctorate may just be a self report.

Does anyone remember which other criterias were used in the PACE trial because it wasn't just the Oxford criteria. This is really important as I seem to remember a screening criteria then an another unpublished criteria. I don't think people are really grasping this in the discussion we are...

I think the problem from my understanding is if you want to study humans you can have millions of subjects in your study but if you have no requirement to include children in the group your results cannot be applied to children. The maximum amount of people who could respond yes to "do you have...

This is the quote in full...... That's how he is defining CFS in his own words for the PACE trial.....the definition is.....defined simply as a principal complaint of fatigue that is disabling Hence fatigue need be the ONLY symptom.

Yes but if you are studying the most popular citrus fruits and you use bananas as your criteria because you work for Fyffes that's flawed.

I'm not even sure that they didn't use an unpublished criteria called the London criteria in the PACE trial. We really need some input from PACE trial geeks here (and not just the data mining types) because the Oxford criteria issue is much more deceptive than some people may think.