And an absence of the fact that Cochrane put a label on the CBT review stating it was out of date? Or did I miss it?It is embarrassing this got published in a journal.
Good to hear from you that this is a small cohort. I hope they are becoming more isolated and obsolete with every publication / public outing of their sour grapes.
The absence of reference to the Round Table and the outcome from this in White et al's paper are glaring.
I think where public services are concerned there's strong editorial 'support for the producers' versus 'less support for the consumers' so doctors/nurses before patients, teachers/lecturers before students etc. Not surprising really as The Guardian is the major UK newspaper for public sector job adverts and features about public sector pay and conditions.The guardian have a long history of bad ME articles. They published a defence by White of lying about recovery from PACE. Clearly someone on their editorial team hates people with ME
I wish we had a video of that proceeding to show the world.Remember that NICE set up a Round Table under Dame Carol Black and invited all these people along to raise doubts. The few doubts raised were dealt with very simply and nobody said a further word.
Their crocodile tears about suffering patients is contemptible.They have no shame.
I have no doubt that they are the reason why it is taking so long to get them implemented. They will be doing everything they can behind the scenes to block and dilute and otherwise pervert implementation in their favour.I wonder if they feel emboldened by the inordinate amount of time it is taking to implement the new NICE guidelines?
How to send a letter to the Guardian
"Have you been affected by an issue that you have read about in the Guardian? Do you disagree with one of our writers’ opinions? Or just love one of our articles or podcasts? We at the Guardian letters desk would love to hear from you.
Send your letter to guardian.letters@theguardian.com
Your letter should be no more than 300 words and in the body of the email, not an attachment.
Please include a reference – either the headline and date, or the web link to an online article that you are writing in response to.
Also, include your name and a full postal address, plus a contact telephone number. These details are for verification purposes; we will only publish your name and location. We do not publish letters where only an email address is supplied.
We particularly encourage people from underrepresented, marginalised and minority communities to write in.
We publish robust views, but not abuse or personal and derogatory comments.
We will get in touch if and when your letter is chosen for publication."
I think where public services are concerned there's strong editorial 'support for the producers' versus 'less support for the consumers' so doctors/nurses before patients, teachers/lecturers before students etc. Not surprising really as The Guardian is the major UK newspaper for public sector job adverts and features about public sector pay and conditions.
The Graun splash is something of a PR coup, sadly.
It may not be such a coup. For a large majority of the UK population I suspect anything loved by the touchy, feely, lefty, just love that therapy, Guardian, is immediately viewed as a joke. The average Telegraph reader is unlikely to be impressed by Chalder's claim that NICE has denied all these lazy tired people treatment they desperately need. The ironies whirl like a Tibetan prayer wheel.
There's an MEA response, and in true MEA style it's not clear on their on their social media posts that it's a response. So now people—many of whom haven't read the MEA piece—are asking why they are endorsing the article.
The MEA desperately need some new, more savvy staff.
Charles Shepherd's response is fine. It's the Tweet that's the problem. I agree their comms people need to get the message straight. This Tweet is not helpful.The MEA desperately need some new, more savvy staff.
So yes, it matters.
Not sure it's fair to blame Charles Shepherd for this. He's not their media person, he's their medical advisor, and his responses to articles like this are usually very good. I agree the MEA need to get their media act together. I am not impressed by their long term chairman's efforts.Charles does so much, and I don't think he's got the media savviness required to lead a prominent charity in 2023.
I am sceptical. I know of three groups of Guardian readers.
1. The love that therapy lot. They will always love that therapy so makes no difference.
2. Those who read it for free but not out of affinity. They will laugh at wingeing therapists.
3. Intelligent folk. They should see that the remonstrations from garner are pure pantomime.
Garner seems now to have decided that ME is a 'brain-body' problem. Not so much Cartesian dualism as Pooh Bear dualism - mostly fluff and stitching.