Search results

Chalder coming up with the idea for this paper:

I'm tempted to think less incentive to hand out anti-depressants is a good thing, but if the alternative is six months on a waiting list for CBT...perhaps not!

This was the survey Dr Phil Hammond shared on Twitter saying it was a pre-guideline survey showing that GET was not really widely used in clinics, until I told him it was actually a post-guideline survey, and that the pre-guideline survey (BACME's previous survey of clinics, from 2018) evidenced...

The expected guideline publication date at the time of submission was 21 April 2021 (announced June 2020). Yes, it can take months and months—and occasionally years—to publish (I've been there myself), but, for a 3-page perspective paper, submitting 8 months prior to the expected guideline...

Oh. I actually missed the 2020 in the first date! A paper does not usually sit with a journal for a year, but the fact that they give the original submission date means that it probably wasn't totally pulled as the authors tried to keep up with developments at NICE. I suspect it may have been an...

Yeah, this was more a 'response' to the draft guideline than the final—probably prepared over summer.

They're trying to stake a claim to rehabilitation, and set the patients as being anti-rehab (because the BPS lot think that patients think anyone who gets better was never ill with ME/CFS, which is generally not the case): GET and CBT are rehabilitative, whereas pacing is not.

This is a essentially a response to the NICE guideline, and the associated debate over key issues, that somehow manages not to mention the NICE guideline once!

These papers are helpful, but do we need a new one every six months?

A 10cm increase over just 100 years seems quite remarkable.

Scotland has it's own version of NICE (SIGN), so I don't think we should automatically expect this website to change due to the new guideline.

Yes, his income is likely nearly all from his 'ecosystem', but the LP claims to treat all sorts of conditions—essentially anything that is unexplained by conventional medicine.

I mean he works privately so I expect this might not affect him that much. If people are willing to consider the LP, a change in the NICE guideline probably won't be a dealbreaker.

Faith-healer Dr Phil Parker is not happy about NICE's decision to recommend against the Lightning Process.

This was distributed to stakeholders yesterday:

It seems there is a new BACME members survey - the one cobbled together in August when the pause was announced.

Copied from UK NICE 2021 ME/CFS Guideline, published 29th October - post-publication discussion It seems there is a new BACME members survey - the one cobbled together in August when the pause was announced.

That's probably true. But then that's not a barrier to the use of images of real patients, because they would be provided free. So what are the barriers? Lack of access?

You have to understand the process by which journalists and editors obtain these photos. I don't know how it works; I suspect it involves some sort of software or online program to access images, probably from respositories like Getty that host stock images. The first step is to understand the...

I think a little campaign for all the NHS websites to be updated in this respect would likely succeed. Something for the coming months.