Search results

I think that when the discussion is about whether ME/CFS should be classed as 'physical' or 'psychological' then patients arguing against a 'psychological' classification are likely to be on the back foot and end up wasting a lot of their time doing little more than encouraging an unhelpful...

I don't know... there seemed to be a number of important claims in that piece which had no reference to support them.

It looks like it's confirmation that Cochrane is as bad as they always looked to be.

Sounds interesting - thanks.

That's the journal that let Crawley breach their own requirements for prospective registration for the SMILE trial, and Segal is the author of the review that used that study to present the Lightning Process as an effective treatment...

Well that all looks terrible.

It makes sense that this was based on something from 2016, when they were still getting away with that sort of BS.

Oh, I thought it was something specific to news about the Cochrane review. Thanks.

Sorry, what statement was that?

Thanks to everyone who has been working on this, and welcome to the forum @carbonis.dentes - I've been a bit too run down to look through your posts properly, but it seems like you've been making important points.

I just happened to see this from Cort about a number of accounts promoting conspiratorial views re Montoya all being from the same IP address: Who knows what was going on there, but it does illustrate how easy it easy for someone to create a bad impression.

Just so everyone's clear: that Greco piece is a different article from the same special issue to the abstract from her and Sharpe posted on their blog.

There are also things like this from Wessely: https://www.s4me.info/threads/simon-wessely-research-related-quotes.1304/#post-22188 eg: In practical terms, this can lead to patients feeling forced to do CBT/GET, and some insurance companies have been explicit that patients are required to...

I saw this piece as good positioning from him. He knew that the benefit reforms that were ideologically tied to his work had become a PR disaster, and that the talk of forced treatment for claimants was never going to fly with the medical profession, so here was a good way for him to get out in...

The way they've acted so far means that patient groups are (rightly) going to be wary of doing anything that could be seen as legitimising NICE's work. Maybe that's part of the problem?

I worry that the more people/networks who would be embarrassed by acknowledgement of the problems with SMILE, the less likely it is we're going to be able to make progress. I think that sort of dynamic has played an important role around PACE.

There seemed to still be a lot of XMRV tweets on twitter... but coming from about two people. If someone is committed to tweeting as many people as they can about how they're certain of something something loopy like that then they can end up making CFS patients look bad.

Spending time reading the stupid things some people say about ME/CFs on twitter was one of the most depressing weeks of my life. There are these pockets of idiotic certainty that I'd been entirely unaware of.

Finding that quote reminded me how much info @Dx Revision Watch had on the early LP stuff. She may be a good person to ask re claims of 'secrecy'?

Crawley was describing her LP pracitioner as 'good' back in 2011: https://meagenda.wordpress.com/2011/01/06/letter-issued-by-nres-following-scrutiny-of-complaints-in-relation-to-smile-lighting-process-pilot-study/ Presumably that indicates that she thought they were able to effectively treat...