Search results

I'll just leave this here... https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jul/02/marianne-williamson-is-a-superstar-in-the-world-of-woo-is-she-also-the-next-us-president

"in the later stages of treatment patients are encouraged to increase their activity (which must ultimately be the aim of any treatment)" Wessely, David, Butler, & Chalder – 1990 It has opened the door to an unending tsunami of blatant woo. The sooner we can get the rest of medicine and...

It is arguably the biggest weakness in their case. The type and magnitude of their results are exactly what you would expect from known methodological biases and confounders. All they have done is figure out how to maximise those biases and confounders, and then simply arbitrarily relabeled...

From the PACE long-term follow-up paper: "There was little evidence of differences in outcomes between the randomised treatment groups at long-term follow-up" Yet the very next sentence is: "The beneficial effects of CBT and GET seen at 1 year were maintained at long-term follow-up..."...

In which case they were unlikely to be deconditioned, thus removing one of the central pillars of the psycho-behavioural model.

That advice has worked out well, hasn't it. :rolleyes:

I will be first in line to sign up for the Black Rice Pudding trial. nomnomnom... :woot:

The beatings will continue until compliance is achieved.

Whatever the flaws in the Australian 2003 Clinical Guidelines, and they sure have them, they did end with this emphatic statement on the whole notion of 'secondary gain':

Reality always wins in the long run. Always. The only choice we have is what price we are prepared to pay for ignoring it.

Oh there is definitely some skewed perceptions in this debate. :whistle: It's a cult, and cults never end well. :(

Yep. Ultimately the axe on BPS will be swung by the bean counters. So perhaps the best path for now (in the UK) is to encourage independent rigorous studies on the outcomes of the IAPT project.

Wessely has explicitly stated he considers psychiatry to be the core of medicine, or the most important branch of medicine, or something to that effect.

This sounds to me like a desperate plea. Here is the real story, Prof Sharpe: There is now no honourable way out of this left for you to take. The last chance you had for that was the publication of the PACE long-term follow-up paper. But instead you chose to go down with that ship. The only...

Who is watching the watchers?

Or the methodology.

Always thought the fight was going to come down to this. They cannot deliver by actual robust scientific standards, so they will arbitrarily lower the standards until they can meet them. It is even worse than that. They are not even merely weakening or ignoring the basic methodology of...

It is exactly the same 'methodology' used by the alt-medicine clowns. Homeopaths, crystal-gazers, shakra-realigners, etc. Yet here it is, right in the core of mainstream medicine, doing incredible damage to both patients and medicine's own credibility. o_O

If they believe they are better then you have quite simply succeeded. :banghead::banghead::banghead:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: This.