Approach to Fatigue Best Practice, 2020, Dukes et al

Put this in the psychosocial sub-forum as the authors seem pretty clueless.

Pubmed, (that gives the abstract above), http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33246515
Paywall, (that gives less of the abstract above), https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S002571252030119X

 

I suspect they know all about the loss of approval of GET - which is why they say 'individualised exercise therapy'. It improbably a red flag relevant to the NICE draft. Individualisation is a weasel word.

 

Bolding mine.

If I might correct you there -
"...... or is sometimes assumed to be a primary condition as the cause is unknown. There is no evidence that it is a primary condition."

 

Dr. Maurice S. Marcuard is an internist in Norfolk, Virginia and is affiliated with one hospital. He has been in practice between 3-5 years.
https://health.usnews.com/doctors/maurice-marcuard-1944661

 

Ooof. That's just sad. Imagine the confusion of using SEID (somehow suggesting it HAS replaced the terms ME and CFS) and actually advising for GET, even though the IOM report is the only piece of literature describing SEID and it obviously does not advise exercise as it literally invalidated the evidence base that promotes this model. Reading comprehension is hard.

Papers like this are oddly good for my mental health. My life is temporarily pointless, I literally do nothing all day every day, just trying to make it to the next day. And yet I still accomplish more than these people, because although I do nothing, at least I do not make the world worse from it. This is just a race to the bottom, down to the pits of intellectual emptiness so total it puts intergalactic voids to shame.

 

He trained at the St. George's Medical School in Grenada, in the Caribbean. It is a for-profit medical school.

 

all higher education is run for profit . the education business is staggering with multi billion pound profits yearly as for quality control of the products sold i doubt it is policed in any significant manner.

 

My understanding of the US system is that all Universities, including the private ones, have to maintain the legal status of being a not-for-profit organisation, but of course there are still advantages to drawing in as much money as possible. They use the profits to expand, or they plough it back into the institution in ways that are benefical to the faculty.

I might be wrong about all of them. But this is certainly the way hospitals work in the US.

Obviously, in the UK, western Europe, Canada and Australasia, most Universities are public and receive government funding, but this doesn't mean they can't turn a profit, although again that profit must be invested back into the organisation. The downside is that they can also incur a loss. They are still responsible for balancing their own accounts at the end of the day.

All the Universities where I have friends - and that includes Europe, the UK and the antipodes - will making a net loss this year. There's a massive crisis in the sector, which has been hit hard by Covid. We are one of the least hard hit, but there will still be job losses at my institution.

 

The full text is available here, in case anyone is interested:
https://accessapps.amdi.usm.my/reqb... Practice. Medical Clinics_CLINICALKEYIMU.pdf