Search results

@Sean https://www.s4me.info/threads/me-association-forward-me-and-oxford-brookes-university-announce-results-of-patient-survey-on-cbt-and-get-in-me-cfs.8902/page-2#post-186343

Does anyone have any real sense of whether those who don't have a stake in ME and /or PACE are likely to open the comments section and read?

I expect the BPS collective is getting nervous about the NICE guideline review and also the Oxford-Brookes report just came out.

Well, it looks from that as though they seem to think they know stuff so . . . I guess in the nearish future we'll be seeing if there is something useful to come from this. I hope so.

Also to clarify. I added a post script edit after @Midnattsol's comment (which I didn't see when I went in to edit). Apologies it it confuses anything.

I appreciate your position as psych needing new ideas but IMO I would consider it naive to think that they will necessarily investigate this in ways that are sound. The ethos here is mostly so skewed toward poor science methodology even when the subject holds some legitimacy. I'd like to Edit...

IMO this branch of science is consistently over-reaching. Very little is known about the brain or microbiome. And why do they naturally assume it is that simple? What about hormones (as one example) how do they mediate things? I have no science background but it seems to me there is a lot...

I can't help but wonder if a few well placed "The Onion" style news pieces would best illustrate the point of how very silly all of these mental techniques are for anything beyond specific and limited mental issues like situational anxiety. But since CBT et al want to expand their tentacles...

Whenever and wherever the BPS advocates publicly proclaim their psychological 'fix' for all and sundry health issues they should be confronted with the above quote.

I see it as exactly that. It's disingenuous and is done in a way that is a win /win for the surveyors and not the patients.

Ah, sorry. Thought I might have got it wrong. Immediately forgot what I read. So this would be it then: https://www.racgp.org.au/clinical-resources/clinical-guidelines/handbook-of-non-drug-interventions-(handi)/about-handi/what-is-the-handi-project

I'm finding it difficult to understand but it seems that this is the HANDI working group. http://imslux.lu/eng/news/204_launch-of-the-handi-cap-emploi-working-group-practical-application-in-the-company Curiouser and curiouser . . . they seem to be connected to the insurance industry also.

On twitter there is an account called "Justsaysinmice' (just says in mice) to highlight that scientists are making big claims (or at least their media relations ppl) that don't necessarily translate to useful knowledge about humans. Also this, Mice are not people, fighting spin in medical...

My tinnitus is not days or months but is persistent bilateral sound that hasn't stopped in years. Some forty years ago I think it was off and on.

I anticipate renaming the next BPS trial to 'that takes the BISCUIT' (the questionnaire is edible too).

IMO at this point genetic testing is more useful to the company you are paying (with some exceptions) than it is for the person who gets the test. Also, there are issues around privacy. No matter what the fine print says, making money is the business of any company and they will be tempted...

If it's light and entertaining you're looking for . . ...

I have saved the link to the paper on the internet archive. The paper that is the topic of this thread and has Julia Newton's name attached has been saved for posterity. For as long as the internet lives that silly piece of work will point back to her. I seriously doubt this bothers her much...

Does anyone know if there was any kind of impact from this advertising?

The latest call is not yet there.