Search results

Or at the very least, apologise for screwing up! As others have pointed out, many problems with the review were clearly detailed in the comments section of the review. It's not like they were top secret. Did you read the review to see if you could find any problems with it? Wouldn't that...

I don't see it as a glimmer of light, particularly as it comes just after the latest article with the Guardian promoting Sharpe's bigoted view of his critics. It looks like more spin to try to evade responsibility for the fact that their podcast was indefensible BS. I think this is the key...

Myhill is dodgy. Any attempt she makes to insert herself into issues like PACE will just be harmful for advocacy efforts. It's in 'scientific reports', so not Nature proper.

I just did a quick search for 'lightning' to see if they chose to ignore the problems with SMILE. They did: They're using it as evidence of "the positive benefits of a cognitive-behavioral approach": Wonder why this charity would be funding work that promoted junk-science?

This whole story is really grim. The UK is a bit crap.

Seems unlikely a qualitative study on this from Esther Crawley & co will be useful. Wonder who decided that would be a good use of resources?

I was sure I'd seen this posted here, but now cannot see it. They say "The early involvement of occupational health practitioners is recommended to maximize the chances of maintaining employment." - Not seen any good evidence for any intervention intended to improve employment outcomes for CFS...

Doesn't work for me - do you have some institutional log in letting you access it?

I'm unable to get more than the abstract... oh well.

Where did you get the full text? I have a fear it will be rubbish.

It's not about falling for being gaslighted, it's about trying to learn from problems of the past. The cartoon doesn't play into the prejudices that are used to dismiss patients - acting as if Wessely views CFS patients as malingers when he has not said that does, even if it's intended to be a...

I thought your attempted paraphrasing was an unhelpful reinterpretation of his words, and I've already tried to explain why.

I read what you said and followed the discussion fine. I respondedg to your paraphrasing by saying "I think it's a bad idea to use to term 'malingering' when putting forth the views of those who have not used that term." Then when you disagreed with my point I tried to explain why I thought it...

You think it's a good idea? I think it's unethical when Wessely and co try to make patients seem worse than they are, and the same is true if anyone does the same to Wessely. Also, it harms attempts to draw attention to real problems with their work, allowing them to present their critics as...

I made a brief comment on this here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/making-complaints-regarding-get-and-cbt-and-the-spite-currently-pouring-from-the-media.10563/page-2#post-188534

This survey looks ridiculous. I would love it if these people no longer had any influence over my life.

Thanks Michiel. Bit of a nothing response... presumably the Moss Moriss paper cited was just another questionnaire based one?

So they're looking at data as it comes in, rather than waiting til the trial is completed?

Thanks to Shepherd for trying... I hope I wasn't unfairly critical of the bits that featured him. I'm critical of everything, and did try to make clear that I thought he had an impossible task. Also good of MEA to post his views on this promptly. Good luck with any complaint - it seems likely...

I think it's a bad idea to use to term 'malingering' when putting forth the views of those who have not used that term.