Since the factsheets are supposed to be factsheets and free from beliefs and feelings I think it could be very valuable if you could point out where exactly you got that impression from? Where there specific passages or wordings or is it rather from a more general reading?
The factsheets are factsheets so they are focused on hard evidence. Vague ideas on speculative hypotheses in reference to hardly scientific notions from neuroscience and other ideas won't make the cut. Similarly you should note that there is no reference to biological mechanisms with unsubstantial evidence in the factsheets, prevalence numbers aren't overestimated etc.
I think you might find that a few (though not enough) psychologists/psychatrists are active on S4ME, others have collaborated with psychologists (Brian Hughes to name one) with others being friendly with psychologists/psychatrists and others visiting them regularly.
Glad you said it before I did - as I’d be reporting myself that it’s because of the psychology background and the shame and embarrassment poor behaviour and thinking brings on the proper scientific subject that bad propaganda charading as research and claiming to be acceptable as scientific psychology needs to be called out.
Interesting to see what we are up against re how some people’s thinking patterns get stuck by belief systems and how dangerous it is /must be if patients are stuck near them as they can’t see or hear anything that doesn’t correspond to old fashioned outdated beliefs systems/bigotry .
I feel like I have my answer in the old wine new bottles even down to the arrows trying to be thrown it’s clear ‘brain training’ is a thinly veiled rebrand for those with the same old ideas on certain people to hide and pretend they are modern to themselves.
it’s worth us remembering with these sheets that this is a sad norm most/many are up against in their daily interactions and how explicit we do need to be therefore on the flaws of it and harms etc.
I can see it’s a painful process for those who don’t want to change because the status quo has suited them well whether it’s true harmful or factually incorrect and uncalled for with devastating attacks on identity created by the lack of responsibility or acknowledgment of what they are knowingly doing deliberately not differentiating. I certainly feel let’s be honest this is just trying to double-down on the horrific 2007 fear-avoidance debunked harmful guidelines that caused a dystopia
Some examples: no mention of stress as a precipitating factor. Saying that graded exercise has been "not shown to help", then talking about surveys. Similar for CBT. That isn't an accurate portrayal of the evidence.
Which again misses out on the fact that this has been ongoing for several decades, and that many members of this forum have been at it for years. We've seen all this. Many times. This field is built entirely on bad studies, all of which were conducted after the model was invented. They invented the model before they had any evidence.
The IOM/NAM report dismissed most of it as too low quality to interpret. So did NICE. So did IQWIG. And many others. This is the peril of relying on bad evidence: the bad part far outweighs the evidence part.
I think technically calling the bps a model is inaccurate
At the time was being pushed and invented by eg Wessley in the form it was - writing down a bigotry and the drawing a big circle and just lumping some ambiguous terms in the middle - it absolutely’stood out’ as breaking with any norm of standard of a psychology model ie done so as to be testable
this was the discussion and what should have been picked up on by any competent person in psychology around the early 2000s . so in a sense it presented an attack on psychology as a subject and as a professions/sciencd trying to set up and do things the right way being undermined - I find it shocking people handed over letting them use their terms (like CBT and model,which needs to recreate/was about getting proper data early on to check things weren’t based on film glam or bigotry then continuing based on fake claims)
so it isn’t actually proper psychology either - and given a circle on paper isn’t a testable if falsifiable model calling it a model and giving it that fake privilege when it never met that is part of the problem/smoke and mirrors
it never met any basics
the closest it comes to as what the bps thing for cfs is/was is a marketing slogan and a propaganda plan.
Weirdly for me these two areas happen to be my background of studies and experience so I say this technically and factually
