Search results

yes thats a good point. certainly a reason for it not to be an official S4ME thing. thank you for your insight @Jonathan Edwards

It's great to ask people to fill in the survey but not everyone will understand the questions or the implications of them, I think it'd be great if we could release some kind of 'guide', - not telling people what to say but explaining the issues related to each question. I'm thinking something...

Yes but how does one include that in policy across the board when an evaluation of the evidence in order to determine what 'misrepresenting' it might be, is what Cochrane are supposed to be doing. I'm too foggy to articulate well, but its surely got to be everyone on both sides of an argument...

@Jonathan Edwards & indeed any other more knowledgeable members can you please clarify the finer points on this question...? Its obvious to me that PIs of trials investigating the intervention being reviewd should not be allowed to author reviews as they are essentially marking their own...

precisely @Sid, like i said, no wonder they love it, & him

yeah :sick:

my emphasis ahhh now i see why there was all the SMC hype & spin - so they can use this study to appear to add weight to their hypothesis that it starts off with an organic problem but is them perpetuated by the cycle of abnormal beliefs>misinterpretation of normal bodily sensation>too much...

:D @rvallee sometimes, you express what i am sort of thinking but cannot articulate, in such an eloquent, razor sharp & amusing way... it makes me very happy :) thank you

I've not managed to read much of this thread am in a bad patch atm, so this may well have been extensively discussed & i got no strength to go through it, apologies if im bringing up 'old news'. But i just needed to say that the whole SMC media spin on this is beyond bizarre. what on earth is...

Great review Trish! yes, that was my first thought too. I wouldnt be at all surprised if that is the entire issue with it

I was so irritated that i dashed off that reply without reading the thread.... Precisely Why are psychologists seemingly so obtuse about this

my emphasis. I admire Jason, but he doesn't seem to be very savvy to the BPS twisting juggernaut... it'd be better if it said without relapse, rather than without fear of it, since i'm pretty certain that's what they meant. Really... because i use all the coping strategies out there (to my...

How exciting Jonathan, it's somewhere i have always wanted to go, those boabab trees look amazing. LOL i had thought it was likely absence due to expert witnessing to a certain committee you're going to be doing :cautious:, thought perhaps you'd been staying away for some wise-but-unknown-to-me...

:D thank you for that much needed giggle @rvallee Exactly. War is peace Freedom is slavery Ignorance is strength

this is awesome @dave30th ! I wish we could read the slides. Be great to be able to see them. At the beginning the fisrt slide was clear - "stupefying paradox" - what a superlative term! :)

Well spotted @JohnTheJack Dear me.... Sharpe's use of 'equipoise' .... :sick: pompous much?

indeed :emoji_disappointed:

well you took the words out of my mouth there @Russell Fleming I must say i am missing @Jonathan Edwards' input on these things. (assuming i understand why he's not around but i still miss his input :confused:)

Precisely & that's the part that makes the CBT bit (that will for us be aimed at 'assisting' patients to discover that your above statement about harm is nothing more than an 'unhelpful belief'), so sinister. I don't know how to fight it, it's Goliath, ridding a juggernaut. And i really do...

It looks like the NCP will draw up something truly catastrophic & it will be lovingly welcomed by all except a few patient orgs who will be written off as 'anti science activists'. I really do feel properly afraid for the future now. But at least when the truth comes out the change in attitude...