Search results

https://acrjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/acr.25104

The Curable app seems to be based on pain reprocessing therapy (PRT) which is based on this unblinded trial with subjective outcome measures published in JAMA Psychiatry: Effect of Pain Reprocessing Therapy vs Placebo and Usual Care for Patients With Chronic Back Pain In it, the authors openly...

Sharpe’s reply was pathetic. They’re not even trying anymore.

It can also be ruinous for us if the likes of Walitt get it.

100%. I get the point about political compromise but that aspect of the new NICE guideline has deeply troubled me from the start and I think it has ended up harming us. It’s allowed existing services to continue to exist when they should be completely dismantled. And it’s allowed for GET to be...

I assumed the figure was a joke.

I can't say I've seen such a thing, except Crawley's LP trial and Magenta. Ultimately, it's up to the ethics committee to stop such inappropriate proposals so the real question here is why she was allowed to conduct such studies.

She is an author on the Magenta paper.

Same here. Transitioning from moderate (flu-like malaise PEM) to severe (extreme dysautonomia) was a terrifying experience. It occurred rather suddenly too, which made me think I was dying.

Yep. Lay members of the public have no idea how difficult it is to prove research misconduct or to get journals to take action even when proven. I know of papers that are still up despite clear-cut research fraud like falsified methods or authorship theft which the journals have been informed...

This section highlights how they think. ME/CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion and if some “real” disease is found in your body, you can’t also have ME/CFS. Some of the other diseases they used to exclude people from the study have nothing to do with our symptoms like childhood epilepsy etc.

It’s very surprising to see this trial so transparently reported. Perhaps the huge pushback on SMILE (and the whole debacle of having nearly the whole article corrected post-publication) made them think it wasn’t worth going through the same hassle this time. Magenta results are so bad there’s...

Most making a good or complete recovery? How are they able to get away with these shameless statements?

I'd like to know if they're still using GET (or whatever euphemism they're using these days to circumvent the NICE guidelines) in their clinical service after seeing these results.

Going down this route will also allow them to focus on the stigmatising bit and give a lecture on dualism, ignoring the stronger and most important points about pwME/CFS being unable to complete the hard tasks and therefore the measure is not a measure of preference.

People with very severe psychiatric disorders also have an inability to eat/drink or mobilise so it's very easy to dismiss severe ME/CFS as psychiatric because the test results are all "normal".

It's literally the same CBT formulation they use for anxiety disorders such as agoraphobia with panic attacks. They think nothing is wrong other than the brain learning to associate physical symptoms of anxiety with activity which then leads to avoidance behaviour.

So they stopped recruitment in 2018, had the results in 2019 (1-year follow-up) and have been sitting on them for 5 years, quietly offloading them in an obscure low-impact journal with no press coverage. It's unethical to not publish trial results in a timely fashion. Also, any GET trials still...

Crawley in her 2016 letter makes several audacious statements about lack of any side effects: The letter sounds even more sinister in hindsight now that we have the results. I doubt those 27% of participants who ended up harmed by GET in MAGENTA enjoyed it.

It takes very little to harm people with GET. There have been anecdotal reports of people who went from moderate to severe after just one session.