I assume they didn't read it fully but posted it because the data are interesting, and they didn't notice that it was really an editorial cosplaying as research or at least piggy-backing heavily on research. I made the same mistake when I first read it or saw a release or scanned the data part...
What did the 2010 version say? I can only see the 2023 updated version. Did the initial version promote the CBT/GET regimen? (I assume so but does anyone have a copy of that document?)
that was my impression. It's like 2 papers in one!! Some interesting data about what people think, and then a discussion section that says--everything patients are saying is wrong.
I actually submitted it in December, but didn't hear anything back for months. I'd forgotten about it and then was told this weekend that it was suddenly running on Monday.
If that's the case, then Jo and Michael Sharpe have something in common. I was astonished once to see a comment from Sharpe fact-checking another commenter on a post. It was the first time I realized he was actually reading what I wrote.
yes, that's what they're referring to--those who "de-transition" from being trans back to their original gender. The analogy makes sense to me. In the trans debate, many trans folks reject the accounts of "de-transitioners"--either saying there are only a handful, they weren't really trans, or...
"Activist" is not considered a dirty or insultng word in the U.S. I only consider it insulting myself if it is meant that way, as it always is when used by these people. The term "campaigner," used in an equially insulting way in the UK as "activist," from my perception, is not used at all in...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.