Search results

I think the political arena is very different, and I'm not sure linguistic perfection is quite so important as getting broad messages across. The BPS crew have been controlling the narrative for so long, with their manipulation of the science/medical debate via their SMC lapdog. But the SMC has...

If not lost, it sounds remarkably like it's at least been mislaid.

Given their track record with ME, I'm not sure they can be trusted with any research.

I actually got my reply a bit muddled, and mistakenly had some of an old edit in the mix, which I thought I'd abandoned :oops:

In this letter to the BMJ, Wessely is quoted as saying in 1994, "There is also a phenomenon known as myalgic encephalomyelitis - or ME. This is not open to simple definition - ICD 10 now discourages its use for that reason - Instead, I will argue that ME is simply a belief, the belief that one...

Do I detect a reduction in arrogance and sarcasm?

With such an inconsequential list of signatories, I'm sure MS/SW/et al will manage to dismiss it with ease ... :rolleyes::p:D (sarcasm in case anyone doubts)

[My bold] The manual (and some of the others no doubt), clearly states in as many words the notion of false illness beliefs, even if not that exact phraseology. Also note it talks about a model, a word which MS seemed averse to using for PACE, but not sure if the context is the same.

Like, whether they believe in fairies? Dress to the left?

Definitely get the feeling they are hoping to change history, as they realise more and more how incriminating it is proving to be.

So the claims made that PACE showed no harms due to GET, are completely rubbished by that simple fact. The inevitable selection bias (is that the right name for it?) excluded a significant proportion of people likely to be harmed by it. Presumably there are ways to try and control for this...

Akin to GET trying to cure people 'suffering' from common sense.

And I guess the upshot of such selection bias is you recruit people more predisposed to answer the questionnaires 'favourably', from the investigators' perspective.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

What potent force Carol Monoghan is proving to be. Not a 5-minute wonder.

That's why I think these twitter exchanges are beneficial. They don't seem to realise how much evidence they are providing (even if much is circumstantial, there is lots of it accumulating now), as they make slip up after slip up. And it is their choice.

Is that a suggested edit for them?

Especially as in some cases it is probably going to induce psychological issues they never previously had. A serious suggestion, not (just) sarcasm. Is this a form of harm in itself? 'Treating' someone for a mental illness they do not have feels like it's going to induce its own stresses into a...

It's a relief to know then, that these BPS folk are all in a state of equipoise when running their clinical trials. Heaven forbid anyone should be concerned they might have preconceived ideas of where their ship might be bound for. Hmmm, "HMS Equipoise" has a ring to it.

Works for me :)