Search results

That is possible.

I don't have the reference to hand, but IIRC some years back he was the subject of one of those puff pieces in a medical journal about 'why I chose X' where he said he went into psychiatry because didn't like dealing with the body (or words to that effect). Which is interesting. Suggests he...

“If you have an author who deliberately tries to mislead, it’s surprisingly easy for them to do so,” he said. Especially if they are telling you what you already want to hear.

If they were honest compassionate professionals they would openly acknowledge and apologise for these kind of mistakes, and learn from them. Without being asked or forced to.

So bad it is not even wrong.

So, a wellness life coach? Kinda the opposite of specialising, isn't it? In fairness, the guy does say (in response to Michiel Tack) that: I think it’s a disease that I know little about. Admission of ignorance is a good place to start learning.

I used to work in the medical system, including in the wards and dealing with patients and medical staff every day, and socialising with the staff after hours, and I get why they need to do gallows humour. If they didn't they would go mad with shock and grief. None of them would last in the job...

The Goldilocks theory that patients just don't know how to balance their lives, and need an expert to help them re-learn how to do it all over again. It is patronising, infantilising, demeaning, insulting, and very dangerous subjective authoritarianism, entirely to justify these 'experts' lust...

Refrigerator mothers all over again. :grumpy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator_mother_theory

And mine. Until we have good means to test those differences we are flying half-blind. The only differences so far that seem important are how broad the definition is (e.g. Oxford v. CCC), and whether PEM is included (and even that is probably not well defined enough yet, but I think that...

Very important distinction.

Reading Wessely's first half dozen publications on ME/CFS is very revealing. His view on it was fixed from day one, and he has not deviated since, other than an early concession that it was not just a form of depression. Also shows his highly political style of debate was there from the start too.

Maybe the structural changes reflected nothing more than changes in questionnaire scoring behaviour, independent of any actual practical therapeutic benefit. Gross incompetence, or straight fraud?

MUS World, where inconsistency is a feature, not a bug.

A problem suppressed is a problem magnified. Solutions usually work better the earlier they are applied.

So why didn't they show up in PACE or FINE? PACE used Oxford criteria. Doesn't get much broader and more non-specific than that in this field. But they couldn't even get a result with that. I agree that we must avoid getting into pointless arguments with individuals that could be in any way...

Good. I encourage the pair of them to go on acting in public like the arrogant entitled reckless arse-clowns they really are. The more of it their non-psych colleagues in the UK see, the sooner they will shove them aside. And don't you just love Wessely lecturing others about the importance of...

How N95 masks work.

Agree. Support from across the political spectrum makes policy change both more likely and more durable when it happens. Also agree that now is not the moment to push PACE at The Times. Overall this round of coverage is quite good so far. Give it time to sink in.

Cowards.