Search results

Pretty good, especially for the BBC, though PEM would have been good to mention - but not bad. I wonder what the SMC's take on it will be. MS quote was classic of course. I think and hope the BBC might be more wary now of gobbling mindlessly from the SMC pig trough.

I'm trying understand the inclusion criteria. Are they saying that if you have had glandular fever (infectious mononucleosis) in the past then that qualifies for entry, stand-alone? It clearly cannot mean if someone currently had it. But given the 'or' then it looks like someone was eligible if...

[My bold] Does this mean some participants might not have been diagnosed with ME/CFS? If so, what are the implications?

Yep. Cannot remember which MP it was to now, a year or so back, but I sent a thank you letter to them for their good work, and copied my MP in on it. In this case, it seemed to me just copying the transcription of Sir Edward Davey's speech and saying nothing else would say quite a lot, being as...

I appreciate it pulls in a whole raft of issues of its own, but its almost as if reviewer's comments need to be open to public scrutiny if a paper is not published, given that a very unjustified review could prevent publication of a good paper. But like I say, I appreciate the impracticality issues.

I know Keith Geraghty is very good, and not looked at the whole paper yet so this may just be a context issue. "There are conflicting models of ME/CFS; we highlight two divergent models, a biopsychosocial model and a biomedical model that is preferred by patients." [My bold] The biomedical...

Valid, providing any lay audience clearly understand what a review of a scientific paper is supposed to be, and not be.

Yes, I posted about it recently https://www.s4me.info/threads/michael-sharpe-skewered-by-johnthejack-on-twitter.3464/page-79#post-83529.

He clearly needed a heavy dose of CBT - Canute Belief Transmogrification.

PACE completely ignored objectively measurable symptoms, which we know much more closely reflects the underlying condition. MS might argue that because the underlying condition is not understood, then also not understood are which symptoms most accurately reflect it. Having a cogent answer for...

But I think there is a clue here: "The Royal College of Psychiatry have got a definition". A definition that many would discount purely based on the source of that definition. It's an attempt to define something by the absence of other conditions, which is not really a true definition at all...

Diplomacy is sometimes essential to effecting sea change ;)

I think it especially heartening that @Chris Ponting has volunteered a time frame range, which procrastinators rarely do.

And maybe this what they mean by trial ...

It's way beyond harassment of patients. Mass abuse.

Exactly. In that light, and especially in the present political climate, that review could be a star of the show, for those very reasons.

I'm afraid I'm just p'd off with my Tory-toe-the-line-do-what's-best-for-my-career-prospects MP. I briefly emailed him asking for him to attend the debate, and I got the standard-letter claptrap back. So I replied simply by pasting the complete transcription of Sir Edward Davey's speech, as per...

I thought you might have at least told us the name @TiredSam, instead of just an onomatopoeia! ;)

A 'review' such as that gives a clear illustration of the relationship between psychiatry and science - extremely tenuous. Absolutely no substance whatsoever, but full on emotive grandstanding. A very good example of some psychiatrists' perception of science.

Ah, so the context was spot on then - but as usual MS didn't like it.