Search results

The McDonaldisation of psychology. Sounds about right. It's boom time, after all. But it's safer to play with government money, in this industry there's almost infinite supply and no oversight.

I'm not so sure that matters since in practice this cannot be validated. And it has been in practice for 12 years by now (17 in Australia, with similar outcomes). A treatment used in practice for this long should be judged based on how it's applied, not on ideal circumstances that some people...

I may have repeated this about a dozen times or so throughout my comments. Hopefully the message gets across.

Meh, Crawley and White. Unreliable.

Ironically, this is a strong argument for mass misdiagnosis, which has been a consistent, and now verified, concern about the psychosocial model. It shows this approach is so unreliable you may as well flip a coin and get better results (since the rates seem to be above 50%, which would be pure...

That's absurd. You literally could not have less reliable evidence than there is for GET. It's entirely subjective, minimal and only exists within carefully controlled settings with biased researchers overseeing and even "specialists" trained on this system cannot replicate in the real world...

I would add the recent NICE survey as well. Can't really fault the source of the survey or its methodology here and it gave responses consistent with the other surveys, essentially confirming the reliability through independent validation. This isn't just patient associations, although their own...

I highly appreciate a patient association that actively responds to disinformation about this disease. About damn time and great response.

This is one area where distinction is important and should remain. There will always be disease-specific research and resources, even if something like centers of expertise for chronic-immune-diseases-on-the-shitlit were created. This is particularly important because to the untrained eye they...

I don't have the brain cells for this at the moment but one trope that bothers me in this is the weird messiah thing about Sharpe and his colleagues boldly and objectively researching treatments for decades and giving hope. This is plain old bullshit. This all started in the late 80's from the...

That makes zero sense. Unless he didn't actually read any of it, which is hardly better.

There is a huge difference between "those people are all sick and we have to figure it out, that will take money so let's put it" and "those people all believe they're sick and we have to convince them otherwise". I don't buy that MUS proponents agree we're sick. They don't. They just pretend...

I particularly love that they essentially amount to "those refutations are wrong because I don't like them", literally the claim being made against all evidence. It's all so lazy and transparent.

Even by the usual standards, this is lazy and poorly researched. The author is basically doing the equivalent of reviewing the movie based on watching the first half of the trailer. I don't know why people feel the need to display their misunderstanding of the situation this way. This belongs...

I understand and appreciate the issue of conflating diagnoses but we are facing a systemic problem that affects way more than us and we will not fix that system all by ourselves. I follow a lot of people with other non-controversial health issues on Twitter and the problems we face are all over...

In their own words, from PACE: TL;DR: as fictitious as Game of thrones. The details are irrelevant, only meant to give the appearance of having a hypothesis. A few times Sharpe even said they have no model and only compared (their own made-up) treatment options. It's conversion therapy...

No need to attribute to malice when incompetence explains perfectly. Medicine is hard enough even when it's textbook perfect. The people who should be solving this problem are simply out of their depth, like everyone before them when they faced seemingly impossible problems, some of which are...

Even worse is that the "treatments" aim to influence the very same things that are "measured" (not really sure measure applies when it's qualitative). It's a method for maximal bias. This is how not to science 101.

Wow. An MD who basically says "I'd want to help those sick people but they are icky so they deserve to be treated like crap". That's not much different from a firefighter saying they let someone in a burning building because they smelled bad and looked like a criminal anyway. What a jackass.

Or a weird application of the 1% doctrine. I absolutely accept that there is a psychosocial factor in pain. 1% sounds about right. But the 99% is complex and impervious to suggestion and you can't really BS your personal opinion effectively when you have to actually show your work, rather than...