Search results

I found it by searching for what she quoted. It's the 'Clinical Care of Patients with ME/CFS' link at the bottom of this page: https://www.cdc.gov/me-cfs/healthcare-providers/clinical-care-patients-mecfs/treating-most-disruptive-symptoms.html

Seems she's referring to the fact that there's a link on the CDC webdsite to these Canadian guidelines that mention CBT and GET: http://www.topalbertadoctors.org/cpgs/0242896

And that FAQ continues to promote the seriously misleading TEDx talk from Crawley... even though TEDx have stopped people viewing it.

Thanks for that summary. Despite this issues you mentioned, definite signs of improvement from what we'd have expected just five years ago.

Really? I think I've seen way more terrible stuff from the Guardian, and nothing like this from Jerome Burn to balance it out: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4790904/Why-doctors-patients-war-M-E.html

Not on ME/CFS issues (which is just about all I feel able to make an informed judgement on nowadays). That the Guardian manages to combine their ignorant bigotry with a smug sense of self-righteousness makes them all the more unbearable.

I had the same thought, but there have been typos in older minutes where the wrong initial was put in, and I could see no 'NM' there.

Also, who is NM? Is it possible that refers to GM too? The primary thing we need to do with PR and medical education is make it clear that people like GM are not trustworthy. I'm not sure GM is the right person to lead on that.

How do they think that justifies their BS? If that was the intention, shouldn't some of the public critics of this work have been allowed to speak? Did anyone who complained get any sort of response? The Guardian is just the worst.

No new info in this, but Steve Lubet posted about Tuller's fundraising here: https://www.thefacultylounge.org/2019/04/crowdfunding-for-mecfs-advocacy.html

In some ways I agree, but I think that there are unusual difficulties around ME that make that sort of dynamic eve more difficult to pull off than it has been in other circumstances. I think that we need to be 'radical' in our aims, but also cautious and restrained in our methods. There's an...

I wouldn't describe Kindlon's approach as 'meek', but his carefully researched, calm and measured advocacy efforts seem to have been useful. I think that is the sort of approach that people like Wessely are really concerned about as it's very difficult for other people to dismiss as 'angry...

I can think of lots of times when patients expressing anger has been used to hurt them, led to them being dismissed, or being used against all patients. I can't think of a single time it has been helpful.

He does write in English! There are lots of people whose investigative work I respect and value, but actually donating to it is quite a different thing. It doesn't surprise me that many Ifewer people donate than support David's work.

Thanks to everyone keeping the donations coming.

Having seen so many false leads in the past, I'm expecting everything to fail to replicate/lead nowhere. At some point I will be wrong though! Thanks for the quick summary of these findings Simon.

Best wishes to them, and anyone else struggling during the holidays.

I've seen other research like this - trying to warn participants about any potential risk of the research can end up sounding a bit silly in some cases.

And it looks like that led to it spreading more on social media too.

That seems a rather trivial correction to make to a one-sided hit-piece. What are they up to? It could be best to use an up-to-date archive link, and remove the direct link? http://archive.fo/0zuZm For some reason this page has not been updated: http://archive.fo/V9WTA