Search results

Adding to my initial comment on deconditioning: I have had some basic core strength testing done by doctors and physios and they could not find anything to be concerned about. Which is one of the reasons I am not convinced about deconditioning being a significant or primary feature of ME/CFS.

The deconditioning claim was made long before Garner got into the game. It was a central pillar of the original psycho-behavioural model put forward by Wessely, Chalder, et al, back in the early 1990s.

I have considerable doubt about that. If patients are more than mildly deconditioned then why can they immediately get up and do stuff when they have a good day or few hours? Obviously I am not saying they can suddenly run a marathon or do a two hour workout in the gym, especially not the more...

There are two levels of proof in play here. The first is establishing that A causes B, at least on a probabilistic basis. The second is establishing the mechanism by which that happens. The psycho-behavioural advocates have established neither.

Vaccination, receiving drug treatment within three days of acute infection, and avoiding repeated infections are the greatest modifiable influences of long COVID development, decreasing risk by up to 63 % under modelled scenarios. :thumbsup:

So the 'functional' part is...?

Yep. Takes two to have a rational debate. But it only takes one to make it irrational.

Very revealing. Should be more than enough to convict them and get them removed from the whole game. Should be. That is exactly what it is. There is no nice way to say this stuff, and we should not try to sugar coat it for anybody.

Yes, the gaslighting is not for our benefit.

Not only has nothing changed in the BPS school, they are becoming more resistant to change and admitting error. 'It didn't work the first 3454 times, therefore we must try it again but even harder and with more conviction this time.' :mad:

Over-medicalisation and over-diagnosis are detrimental to patients. And over-psychologising isn't? The problem is inaccurate diagnosis and inappropriate treatment, whether medical or psychological.

That is largely true for the whole mental health field, IMO. They are as powerful and influential as ever, yet the mental health of society is not obviously better overall than it was previously, far as I can tell, and is even arguably declining. Either they do not understand mental health...

Renegade Research How appropriate. --------- Sock potato. Pfft. Just wait until you see the clear benefit demonstrated in my experiment on polar bear repelling rocks. No a single polar bear has been seen here since we started using them. The fact I live in the tropics and no polar bears...

Must be some mighty powerful woo if it can reverse causality.

Explain-a-matic™ Just feed in any data on health condition and it will say the answer is FND.

This.

Not even that, all we can conclude is that some patients report feeling better about it. As is tradition they have failed to collect data that enables us to distinguish between merely modifying questionnaire response behaviour and actual improvement in the underlying condition. Not going to...

From the editorial: How do they know this? It might be, but the science is nowhere near being able to state it with such certainty. For very good reason. Decades on and there is still no confirmed treatment, let alone cure. Also think the use of the term 'feeling' is highly inappropriate and...

Preventative measures are all we have for now. There are certainly no treatments, let alone cures, once you have got it. So I say crank them up, big time. Encourage masks, air filters and better ventilation in buildings, social distancing (within practical reason), hand hygiene, staying at home...

They actually have contradictory views. When patient self-report supports their interpretation it should be accepted without question, even if any objective evidence says the opposite. When it doesn't [support their interpretation] it should be ignored, or used as evidence that patient...