Search results

Unfortunately it is a common trick of those who wish to redefine how people think.

Apart from how obviously ludicrous that is, it also makes a significant statement - whether the authors realise it or not - about their strong implicit bias. You clearly could not run this trial on that basis unless already convinced people with ME/CFS had no physical problems with exercising...

They are also trying another conflation trick here I think - just my opinion. There is the suggestion here that if you have a medical condition that you can never fully recover from, then you may have to reassess your goals to ones that are realistically achievable, in the light of illness...

:D:D:D:D:D:D:D:D Not read the paper itself, so had not seen this. You really could not make it up could you ... Their very act of writing this is an exercise in moving goalposts, trying to redefine their own threshold for credibility as scientists. Well I'm afraid they have got their goalpost...

Recovery is not always about eliminating all symptoms. Rather, it is a nexus between the reality of limited opportunities for full recovery, yet a strong desire to leave the illness behind and regain a sense of “normality.” So "recovery" is not "full recovery". Now there's a bit of self-serving...

Exactly my impression. As if no on else was going to put their head on the block this time around, and this poor chap drew the short straw, and so deciding to play it as safe and as uncontroversial as possible. Just my own personal impression of course, nothing more.

Yes, but I am aware of the point @Jonathan Edwards makes in his testimony, that any flavour of CBT left in the guideline could be prone to conflation and confusion. ETA: I also think it could be the thin end of a wedge.

Done

Hmm, that will need addressing in any response I think. OK, so it is accepted there is no curative value in CBT for ME/CFS. So the question has to be asked what is the evidence of value-added benefit (and evidence of lack of harm) for "general purpose" CBT aimed at ME/CFS, over and above that...

Clearly this is a draft not the final thing. So how much risk might there be of the good things in this draft being diluted or even reverted? Because there must be potent forces bubbling under to try and achieve just that. Not a time for complacency or counting chickens I worry.

Is this in the new draft? Only done the barest skim so far.

Yes, very much doubt the draft guideline would be what it is so far without this testimony. Possibly nothing like. As @Jonathan Edwards says, it is written to help people understand even if not familiar with trials methodology; couldn't help wondering if there is a subtext in that, in trying...

Yes, given there is no case for CBT-a-la-GET, as targeted towards ME/CFS, there is presumably no point making a specific mention of it at all. Is it mentioned specifically for other disabling illnesses? (I genuinely don't know the answer to that). In truth any supportive CBT for ME/CFS would...

"STOP THE REVIEW" probably.

Just skimming: Yes. Stay within energy envelope and to not push through activity - good. Rest as need be - good. Good. Good overall, albeit possibly some fine tuning. I like the last point especially, because it highlights never to opt for automatic increases in activity, and that may have...

Seems to be a week for throwing toys out of the pram :whistle:.

Also worth bearing in mind that supportive CBT will, validly for many conditions, include encouragement to exercise as a way of healthier living. Far from a one-size fits all.

So very sorry to hear this @Gary Burgess. Sincere wishes to you and your family.

That chimes with what I see with my wife.

:D:D:D Yes, I overlooked that one.