Search results

I thought that cancer recovery/cure was defined as the time point after treatment when the risk to that individual of that specific cancer returning fell to the baseline population risk for anybody getting that cancer.

Looks interesting. Though not sure about this: "characterized by non-specific symptoms,... post exertion malaise" Non-specific? In my experience PEM is pretty specific. The more I do the sicker I get. Broadly speaking the basic symptom profile remains unchanged, the PEM just amplifies it (or...

Had general anesthetic twice, one for stomach biopsy, and another for septoplasty. Didn't make any noticeable difference to my ME.

And using an opaque clinical method, thus preventing rigorous independent testing.

This newly re-elected government will 1) be facing some serious budget problems (of their own making, I might add), and 2) are always very keen to dish out some hard austerity (to others) and that convenient 99% recovery claim from our leading BPS expert (Lloyd) is just too good to let mere...

Happy for Jen. But, as Esther12 noted, this just highlights the problem with celebrity patients (for want of a better term).

And typically far harder to convince they are wrong.

*sigh*

Sounds familiar. Let me see... Ah, yes: The time has come to look elsewhere for effective treatments. Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT Wilshire et al. BMC Psychology (2018) 6:6...

True. But also true that they didn't have to wait decades before even just starting to get their real situation recognised by the health authorities. We are at least 30 years behind, and given the politics at play there is only a small prospect of catching up quickly. At this stage, chances are...

That is also pretty much a straight lift. Could have been written by Wessely himself.

They have backed themselves into a corner from which there is now no honourable way out. And that never ends well. Opaque methodology, plus having the power to declare your victim delusional or deviant, has never been a safe mix.

The 'too much of a burden to patients' excuse was obvious nonsense when they first used it, and the TMG notes obtained later prove it was also a lie and, IMHO, scientific fraud (by removing a measure that they knew was likely to provide strong disproof of their hypothesis).

That statement is going to come back to haunt Prof Sharpe.

Which implies very strongly that it is caused by unhelpful beliefs.

Would really appreciate any videos like this being posted on YouTube as well, if possible. :thumbup:

I don't think there is any doubt that the BPS crowd have deliberately obfuscated the distinction between GET and pacing, and tried to morph GET into pacing (and maybe vice-versa too), while still calling it GET. All to avoid having to admit that GET was a disaster to start with, and patients...

Yeah, excuse me if my cynicism is running sky-high on this. They must have had all this data aligned at some point in order to do their own analysis in the first place. My money is on this being deliberate obfuscation, possibly with the aim of delaying any publication of results by others using...

Jail terms are appropriate for the worst offenders, along with permanent loss of professional licences. The lack of accountability for this extraordinary and relentless carnage is a fucking disgrace. :mad::mad::mad:

I agree with a distinction between research and the clinic. 'Measure everything' is not a valid clinical approach. But it is not necessarily so invalid for research, especially when we have so few leads and hypothesis generating data to start with. Certainly not saying we should blindly...