Search results

In chaos theory such states are due to a strange attractor, the balance of forces that keep things moving around that projected attractor. There are maybe a few threads on this on PR, probably old threads.

One of the issues I think we face is that while many things are wrong they are not sufficiently reliable and present in the patient pool to qualify as diagnostic. On an individual basis things are wrong, on a group basis its not consistent enough, or hasn't been given the technology of the time...

Unrest is due to start soon on Netflix. In Australia I found a listing for the 15th, but this was a third party listing so I cannot guarantee accuracy.

My worst years, long before I found patient websites, are a vague blur. I hope the very severe also do not recall much of what it was like.

This question has been asked many times. I think it is political. My guess is they want unmet need, and complain about it at the same time, as they can then lobby for more services.

I would like to add encephalitis and meningitis survivors to this list.

Sadly this is too much the case. Psychiatry, patients, and medicine in general, are ill served by this. However this is not entirely due to researcher misconduct, as the career, publishing and reward systems are geared to reinforcing this behaviour. Oh dear, sounds like something that can be...

Impeccably. Stick to provable facts. Those are damning enough given the gravity of the situation. Don't demonize, demonstrate.

Funny, that is what I have been calling it. Its being used more and more in academia in relation to this as well.

Like they buried the fact that the PACE patients showed no improvement in fitness until they could write a paper giving a positive spin on it ... five years later. Suppressing data critical to interpreting PACE for five years is ... ?

Let me point out one big issue with objective outcomes in treatments for psychiatric diagnoses. There are no diagnostic tests for nearly all psychiatric diagnoses, if not all. The very diagnoses are not objective. Yet this does not prevent objective outcome measures. It just means we cannot be...

Objective outcome measures, though limited, are indeed available for psychopsychiatric interventions, even on purely psychiatric disorders. I suspect that the difficulty involved, and the likely outcome such as showing their interventions are without value, is why they do not happen. For...

They (CBT/GET researchers) probably are aware of the harm they are doing, at least to the extent they should be cautious. They are possibly in denial, or convinced they can make it work if only ... , or are doing it for their own agendas. If they think they can make it work and think their...

Yes, and most of that work needs to be replicated in well defined cohorts, or ignored. All Oxford studies can be ignored. Fukuda is well past its use by date. Most studies in ME/CFS are not conclusive or not replicated. Few studies with well defined ME patients are done. Only exploratory studies...

They (not EC) did that to James Coyne in relation to PACE which got him fired up.

Yes. Ignorance of cause is not the same as proof of some claimed cause. It could be biochemical, informational (the only type of "psych" disorder I think might exist), or a plot by aliens, the Illuminati or those evil creatures the unicorns. If you are going to claim its some unproven fictional...

Dealing with copyright by one party punitive actions is a lot like Prohibition. Until the technology changes just human nature is enough to ensure it cannot properly be enforced. Even with changes in technology it will still be a battle. They say market forces respond to need, but, with...

Yes. If its someone worth explaining to I will usually try to explain more than once, though on separate occasions. After a few times though its not my problem, its theirs. With doctors I briefly mention one or two research findings, and wait until the next appointment to mention one or two...

That is not what I do say, it is often what I want to say though.

Generally you can copy no more than ten percent of an article, especially if used for review purposes.