Search results

On that latter one given how viley we are all treated - particularly in the judgement and evaluation arena (lots of twisting of things) - I can see how a 'normal reaction' to an 'abnormal situation' would definitely be warped into someone claiming this. Besides given how many just want to do the...

It also makes sense if we get people wanting to cross-reference their own research to bits of findings from it if they 'had the choice' to use the same tool with the same format (and wording) for filtering/grouping or whatever it might offer ie research is 'on the same page/scale/cohort' going...

Shocking numbers isn't it. And nearly all of the presentations I see to CCGs say it is cost neutral and have all sorts of savings calcs about 'care and benefits' reductions. And saying it will increase the workforce. To quote what I found in the PACE minutes about the DWP only funding research...

Yes I often have to point out to people that 'BPS' (biopsycho) is actually anti-psychology. So we have all sorts of double-think where they accuse those who question them of anti-mental health. Goodness knows why those who do CBT that is properly developed around a condition that was mapped...

It's weird and circular I agree. And a lot of mental illness is an injury caused by someone else so the 'responsibility' bit doesn't add up either. If someone's hand is burning then you ask their perpetrator to take the iron off it. That's real scientific psychology as much as any other science...

Yep it means nothing - especially if it isn't true AKA for a scientist I don't see her presenting research on that, even if it means nothing anyway. Other than..... it being a tactic to close down debate AKA 'it is now commonly accepted bla bla bla..' = 'I don't want to hear about anything to...

Using proper science to do so? Something's gotta give there

That about 'nutshells' that one (in a nutshell. : in a very brief statement). Bravo. :emoji_medal: