Search results

Exactly what I've been pondering, but not formulated well enough to get the words down. Thank you Jonathan. Agree 100%.

I think it is the thin end of a very big wedge if we decide membership on whether we like/agree with people or not. It exhibits significant bias, and bias is what we strive against all the time. Let's not give those people just cause to accuse us of bias, no matter what kind of bias.

Its an intriguing thought that if they did, do everyone's views get the same weightings? Are there any sanity checks?

But to get a bit philosophical, whatever 'reality' might be, all we can ever have is our perception of it, no matter how we might wish to dress that up. In a way, reality is an illusion.

I think that when it comes to safety, in all walks of life, then Joe Public should not have to prove beyond doubt that something is harmful, before precautionary action is taken. Once reasonable concerns are raised, even in the form of convincing anecdotal evidence, the burden of proof should...

In principle I agree, but if fulfilled politicians as a species would be decimated. (I deliberately avoided saying extinct, because it is clear there are also some really good ones).

They do run away from genuine science-based criticism! All their efforts are with a view to achieving that.

Either way, we should not run away in the same manner they do. If they try to use our good scientific arguments as evidence against us, then good luck to them.

I think the lines between GET and CBT have been getting increasingly blurred, deliberately possibly. CBT is a tool, just like a blade is, and it's as much to do with what kind of blade you use and what you do with it. A surgical scalpel is obviously a life saver in the right hands, but try the...

I think @Carolyn Wilshire also said that further investigations would be needed, and that any final numbers might not be significant.

Things are things definitely afoot now on quite a lot of different fronts. The more things change, the faster things should change ... and the harder and harder it should become for those on the dark side to block change.

It really does feel like the lunatics taking over the asylum.

@Sly Saint not sure if this might help: https://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/your-stories/whats-the-difference-between-a-psychiatrist-psychologist-and-psychotherapist/#.WpK9q2rFLZY

I think this must be what happened to Jimmy Hood's bill: [My bold] So MPs so-minded can just keep stalling a private members bill until the parliamentary session ends.

It sounds like the next meeting of minds will likely be the Scoping Workshop then.

So long as the medication did not itself provoke issues for PwME. I wonder if the normal drug testing accounts for people with special vulnerabilities?

Simply because the commons time it needed to be properly heard was persistently denied to Jimmy Hood.

I think the reality is that noted in the Wikipedia link @Andy gives in post #20. MPs, and those who manipulate them, can repeatedly push aside private members bills by ensuring they don't get a hearing.

I suspect they may be the equivalent of "This entry is deleted", but not sure.

I wouldn't hold out much hope there.