Search results

I am the only person who should even remotely be thinking about doing anything else preemptively. NO ONE ELSE MUST DO ANYTHING AT THE MOMENT--NOTHING. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough.

My understanding is that these Thursday debates almost never get covered. I think it would be a mistake to automatically assume that it was not covered because it's about ME. I mean, that certainly wouldn't help. But we don't know that's why. It's just as likely because it was a Thursday...

When the article appears, I will obviously consider the appropriate response. As part of that, I will consider whether and how to involve Berkeley folks and other scientists/academics.

This was in the works long before the debate. The story was delayed for other reasons. The coincidence in timing is just that--a coincidence.

Absolutely not. This is not a good idea in any way, shape or form. No one should do anything at all. And when it comes out, any response must be temperate and well-thought-out. I would urge everyone not to be reactive and possibly not to do anything at all even after the article comes out.

I expect and hope people will be extremely temperate in their responses.

I found it interesting that this seemed to be phrased as if I'd made some sort of shameful admission.

You mean is that right for healthy people? Severe deonditioning can has serious impacts--that's what is "undoubtedly true." But this has nothing to do with ME, so it is irrelevant information.

It's on a page where you click an image to reveal even more information. In the section on CFS/ME model, I think.

Thanks for that. Interesting then that she still included it not only in 2012 but didn't see fit to remove it in the 2018 review.

Thanks, Michael! About the association, the literature from this group is replete with these findings. Much of this stuff is more than a decade old. So research "has shown" this in the past. I'm not up-to-date on what the Vercoulen folks have done. I'm not sure whether or not any such data has...

Hi, just to clarify--this was not a policy statement about a policy in effect. The document is a response to a proposal or a report from the Department of Health. The offending phrase is an expression of RCGP's opinion--it does not indicate that this is current practice. Although we know that...

Oops! Since it seems those glitches were in the letter itself, I won't correct them on the blog post.

Brine needs to be put on the spot about this. Assuming he agrees it is not an acceptable approach, he will have to explain why a training program from the organization that endorses it should be praised for addressing "misconceptions" about the illness.

yeah--this would be shocking in a normal universe. In BPS-world, I guess it's normal.

I sent it to Monaghan, Nicky Morgan, Darren Jones and Steve Brine. I am sending it to Professor Chew-Graham seeking response to the post and to her misstatements about cost of MUS. Good idea to call out RCGP as well.

and all the PACE and NICE stuff seems exactly the same.

But Jo, what if you add absurdity to infinity?

Wilshire et al was published the month before--in March. A review that does not take that into account is absurd.

I thought I saw one version that indicated it had been reviewed in 2018. But now I can't find that version. Did anyone else see that, or did I make it up? Added: Found it. Here is the version that indicates it was reviewed in April 2018: http://elearning.rcgp.org.uk/course/info.php?id=93 And...