Search results

he he he... :D

Love that image. :laugh:

A thing of beauty!

It is downright insulting, and a deliberate invalidating of the patient experience.

We are wandering into some problematic territory here, folks. Unless we have hard evidence of both the connection and any related wrongdoing, then best to back off and leave well alone, IMHO.

Frequent rebranding is a good index of how dodgy the underlying claim is in the first place. The term 'pacing' has been hijacked.

QMUL & White have no excuses for not providing data. None. :grumpy:

Either the patients were high functioning and atypical, or it shows that (at least cardiorespiratory) deconditioning is not a factor in ME/CFS.

And after other critical papers, like Wiborg, and FINE.

In fairness to the Lancet, the recovery paper by PACE was published in Psychological Medicine in 2013. Lancet published the primary PACE paper, in 2011, that made the improvement claim. White PD, et al. Comparison of adaptive pacing therapy, cognitive behaviour therapy, graded exercise therapy...

Now this is what real science looks like. :geek: Yes, it is now way past there being any reasonable or acceptable excuse for the medical profession and governments failing to deal with this properly.

Add me to the list of those not convinced of the benefits of anaerobic exercise for ME patients. It may well be less harmful than aerobic exercise. But that is not necessarily saying much.

I would use words like despicable fraud and cruel beyond belief.

Thus proving yet again just how utterly disconnected these clowns are from human reality.

Agree. This is going to require a major change of attitude and policy at the top of both the medical profession and government in the UK. My biggest concern about the situation in the UK is that Wessely & Co manage to capture Corbyn Labour on this. If that happens then it is over for patients...

Agree. They have developed a general modus operandi that basically involves maximising known experimental confounders for this type of research, making sure objective measures are not used properly or at all, arbitrarily tweaking statistical thresholds to ensure the confounder effect exceeds...

That stinks. And, IIRC, no correlation between changes in activity levels and self-report. How much disproof do they need?

People have gone to jail for less dishonesty.

This.

We are not rejecting it. We are pointing out that it offers no support for your claim that CBT & GET deliver a meaningful therapeutic benefit.