Search results

@Action for M.E. Can you please clarifie your position? On one hand you criticize the PACE trial, and then tweet an article promoting the therapies this same trial tested. I am sorry to say I don't see any coherence in your decisions.

Despite having no choice but admitting the limitation of CBT/GET, the BPS proponents never question their necessity, it's because "the therapies are not given soon enough, or not in the correct way, or not enough sessions, or patients aren't motivated", and so on. That never ceases to astonish...

Well, the authors' mothers did a poor job during pregnancy at expecting them to be logical and rigourous ...

Circular reasonning

Yes, I agree, but there seems to be a change. "Brilliant account" to qualify a paper that clearly takes sides against the BPS contrivances, is strong (even though the rest of his statement is, a you say, very vague.) I may be too optimistic, but maybe he's starting to see things in a different...

For a little bit of background: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Colquhoun "Colquhoun runs the website DC's Improbable Science, which is critical of pseudoscience, particularly alternative medicine, and managerialism"

Interesting: Hilda Bastian was co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration and its Consumers and Communication Review Group. https://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/about-hilda-bastian/

This thread, previously in a 'members only' forum, has been moved to a public sub-forum. If anyone is concerned about their posts being in a public sub-forum, please contact us.

Heads, I win. Tails, you lose.

Posts relating to the UK Health Research Authority's answer to MP's questions have been moved to a new thread.

They nonetheless investigated 3 separate issues. Conflicts of Interest Availability of data for secondary analysis Alterations in the outcome measures used :sick:

From the HRA document But they found that: How did they arrive to this conclusion? :jawdrop: And so? WTF

Michael Sharpe makes it look like PACE has been totally cleared: When the report says:

Read more

Posts discussing IAFME, Forward ME and the roles and relationships of ME organisations have been moved to this thread.

No, this is not in the new guidelines, but is in the section 'what is ME and CFS' of the Sussex & Kent ME/CFS Society website.

Considering who the MEASussex is collaborating with, there are reasons to be concerned: https://measussex.org.uk/what-is-me-or-cfs/

Besides all the limitations such a debate inherently has, "the discredited PACE trial" was a blatancy for everyone. Who would have bet that with certainty a few years ago?