Search results

Monbiot asks: Why would people who are sick attack medical researchers investigating their sickness? I don't take that question as necessarily being in favour of one or other side. It is actually a pretty neutral straight question, the sort of question one would ask when wishing to...

I think the best response to this 'Special Report' is for the researchers and clinicians who are being attracted to work in the field to simply say so, and describe their interactions with patients. That alone would destroy the central claim underlying this whole article, and expose the real...

Special Report: Uh oh, they're onto us.

Not wanting to displease the therapist could easily explain any 'benefits' seen in PACE on its own, without having to invoke the placebo effect.

Excellent as always. :thumbup: Thank you, Carolyn & Tom. :hug:

Or to report feeling better.

Don't give him traffic.

The term CFS was in use in Australia no later than 1988/89, because that was when I was diagnosed. It was also being used in the media here.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRGGGGGHHH!!!!! I now feel "a little better", and it didn't cost a penny.

Thanks for your work, Carol, and best wishes for your future. :thumbup:

I think recording of medico-legal assessment should be compulsory. Here is Australia you can be required to sign a legal form stating that you will not record a psych assessment. It is outrageous that they are allowed to hide the raw content of their assessments in this way. In effect they are...

Allegedly representing. Do we know for sure they are legit? Could be a plant trying to stir up trouble against us.

You guys might be onto something there. It was so obvious, wasn't it.

He's a man of many talents, that Phil. Mostly revolving around getting money from people.

The most obvious thing about this article is the complete lack of any mention of, let alone serious discussion about, the actual scientific and ethical issues driving this debate. A little better? That wasn't their claim in the PACE 'recovery' paper. They said 22% in both the CBT and GET arms...

An uncontrolled study... Stopped reading there. :grumpy:

somatikken. = somatic (i.e. the body) ?

All the trappings of a science based profession, and none of the content.

They have been so used to getting away with this crap for decades that they have no idea how to respond to compelling evidence-based arguments before an independent authority not under their spell.

Is this level of appeal the final on facts, and they can only appeal on points of law from here?