Search results

It would be interesting to know when he decided that the GET he does is not GET as he hears about it. Since that is the GET that is described in PACE, it would be interested if he has ever previoulsy said that PACE GET didn't represent what he thinks of as GET. Or has he actually cited PACE as...

Oops!

Exactly. They justified it on the basis of their clinical experience, and also on the basis that the results with the changed outcomes were more consistent with the earlier trila results. In other words, they based PACE on the early trials and then changed PACE outcomes so the results would...

it means they have a hard time, like most people would, when having to deal with respected experts presumed to know what they're talking about.

No. they could easily be referring to the stakeholder version.

this has seemed to me to be a huge part of the issue--not just among journalists, but among other academics/scientists in UK, who feel unable or not in a position to challenge these august people.

Yes, it's not really comparable to the climate change "debate" in that the pro-CBT/GET studies are in high-profile journals that continue to defend them, and high-powered academic institutions behind these investigators. Journalists are not really equipped to adjudicate these complex disputes...

especially given the pubished reports based on clinic data seem to be scientifically very questionable, like the Psych Medicine pro-CBT piece that included Wessely and Chalder as co-authors.

There was a slide show in which Wearden described the illness as like very bad jet lag.

Sometimes that's likely true, but I find as a non-patient when I try to explain to other non-patients, it often really is lack of understanding and not disbelief. it is really literally harder for people unfamiliar with it to understand what it means than if you say, "I have kidney cancer."

really? maybe that's different usage. I consider nurses, therapists etc also to be clinicians.

was it published anywhere?

This is certainly true. And also people could have subclinical infections that are triggering it, or mild infections they don't really remember years later when they finally get diagnosed.

Once an embargo has been broken, it is broken. The Guardian would no longer be bound, I think, given that The Times already reported the same thing.

yes, something like this. I agree with Jonathan that the hypothesis essentially falls whether or not it is psychologically oriented. But one of the reasons it falls is that assumptions of psychological factors causing symptoms are simply unprovable and untestable. So the argument does inherently...

Given the different US and UK contexts, I can understand why in the UK there is concern about the tendency for the argument to be made about psychological vs organic illness, and why in UK it seems to play into the hands of the CBT/GET ideological brigades. But raising that argument does not...

To clarify--this is the Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy, published by the Romanian Association of Experiential Psychology. I'm not sure this would be considered a high-quality source.

He once told me he felt about 70% recovered, although that was years ago.

It would be strange for O'Neill not to follow up what he wrote with something about what happens when it comes out. But who knows? Things often depend on competing news at the time.

embargo is for the press and so yes, the SMC will have it and I assume also journalists covering the issue with the various media outlets. I assume SMC will post something the minute the embargo ends.