Search results

It is pretty classic though, and part of their modus operandi. If you cannot win an argument legitimately, then instead employ an oblique ad hominem attack by attaching a belittling/derogatory/dismissive label to your opponent, in an effort to subvert their credibility.

Note she says "many patients do recover from chronic fatigue symptoms", not syndrome. For a good few years I had symptoms of chronic fatigue, and eventually got through it, but am certain I never suffered from ME/CFS; indeed when I saw a doctor they never even mentioned ME/CFS to me. I can say...

Yes, that is very true.

The huge problem being of course, that when patients are offered treatments, the patient may not understand the implications - good or bad - of that treatment. It is why they consult an expert, and often rely heavily on the consultant's expert advice on the safety and efficacy of such a...

Yes, service providers who services are relatively cheap, and thereby politically favoured, pushing clinical effectiveness much further down the priority list.

There are always outliers that frauds and quacks use to try and prove a general case. Which itself shows how little they comprehend. ETA: By this I mean that there will always be a small % of people who are not ill and seek to work the system, and if LTS and the like focus on people like this...

Yes, I think you could be right.

Maybe you should. Put the cat among the pigeons :).

Why am I always being misunderstood? I must have a funny way of saying things. This is what I said: "As I see it, leaving CBT in, even under the thin guise of being supportive, would be politically and financially motivated - nothing to do with health care evidence." "CBT clinics would still...

[my bold] I think this is one of the most important parts of your excellent submission @PhysiosforME. I and others have been discussing much the same in these threads recently. I think the fact that such over-referencing of CBT in a single guideline is discriminatory is a crucial point to...

Very well done @PhysiosforME :thumbup:.

I appreciate there are some things that cannot be said here ... but what a year 2020 has been! Both worldwide and particularly in the UK, especially for pwME. New NICE guideline being a major part of that.

This is the post I was thinking of: https://www.s4me.info/threads/how-to-assess-if-a-research-paper-has-used-best-practice-protocols.13654/#post-303128

I seem to recall a post some time back that reckoned they were connected in some way.

I understand where you are coming from, but I think that having come this far then we just have to go for it. A key characteristic of our S4ME submission is that it is objective, not emotive. It's a difficult call, but I think that if S4ME submitted anything that skimped on detail then we would...

Yes, an extremely important observation I think. It would be highly counter productive if we inadvertently implied ambivalent support for what we don't explicitly mention, give how pleased we are with much of it. Might be wise to give some indication that, by default, the things that we do not...

And as you and others have said before, the CBT here is strongly targeted towards deconditioned people with flawed illness perceptions, so definitely not those with properly diagnosed ME/CFS. I also think we should be wary of "ordinary" CBT, whatever that might be. For most people needing to...

Yes, they truly do seem to have their heads up their rear ends. Cognitive constipation.

Agreed. The whole point is for NICE to not be influenced by low grade evidence, no matter what its source and no matter what in relation to. I imagine NICE must by now appreciate that even back in 2007 they fell foul of this big-time, so hopefully all the more determined not to repeat the same...

Apologies if already covered. http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2005/to-set-the-record-straight-about-ean-proctor-from-isle-of-man.pdf