CBT for CFS Therapist Manual PAEDIATRIC CFS TEAM, ROYAL UNITED HOSPITAL, BATH, UK Loades, M.E. & Starbuck, J. | 2020

It is interesting that this sort of muddled drivel is still being put out. I have not read all of it yet but will probably go back and look at more. It may need to change a bit in 2021!

There seems to be no reference to the PACE trial but I am not sure there are any references to any formal publications.
 
For many young people with CFS/ME, recovery is not about a ‘going back’ to who they used to be, but a ‘going forwards’ to a new version of themselves whom has been through what is often reported as an enriching and developing experience, and who has progressed developmentally too

They are clearly confident in the success of their therapy
 
chrisb said:
For many young people with CFS/ME, recovery is not about a ‘going back’ to who they used to be, but a ‘going forwards’ to a new version of themselves whom has been through what is often reported as an enriching and developing experience, and who has progressed developmentally too
Click to expand...

We are going through a phase where we are being reminded of all sorts of people's legitimate sensitivities, and rightly so but can anyone respond to this with anything other than cringing?
 
chrisb said:
For many young people with CFS/ME, recovery is not about a ‘going back’ to who they used to be, but a ‘going forwards’ to a new version of themselves whom has been through what is often reported as an enriching and developing experience, and who has progressed developmentally too
Click to expand...

I smell a lie. Or put differently, they are bullying young people to report that. I clearly remember this lot reporting research in terms of recovery. Now this. Very twisted minds.
 
chrisb said:
For many young people with CFS/ME, recovery is not about a ‘going back’ to who they used to be, but a ‘going forwards’ to a new version of themselves whom has been through what is often reported as an enriching and developing experience, and who has progressed developmentally too
Click to expand...
Is that the new version of themselves that stops complaining that they are ill?
 
chrisb said:
For many young people with CFS/ME, recovery is not about a ‘going back’ to who they used to be, but a ‘going forwards’ to a new version of themselves whom has been through what is often reported as an enriching and developing experience, and who has progressed developmentally too

They are clearly confident in the success of their therapy
Click to expand...
Redefinition of recovery.
Given the failure of treatment methods this was guaranteed at some point. This places it within the psychological/ psychiatric normal definitions.

I wonder how young people feel about this and when exactly during the course of " treatment" this version is presented.

Our paediatric consultant said at 2nd meeting ( c 6 months after referral) that not everyone got better, but most did. ( the 80% figure that is often mentioned) .

A clear understanding from the get go would have enabled a bit more forward planning to be done s just in case became our normal.
 
I've read as much of this as I can stomach. For the most part I find their therapy built upon a convoluted pile of horsesh__. Their basic premise is totally wrong. My heart goes out to anyone subjected to their nonsense. They are so sure of themselves that I fear the only way to get through to them is for they themselves to come down with ME/CFS. There is a vital place for health counseling to help young people with ME/CFS, or anyone with any serious chronic illness, but I'm afraid their convoluted ideological ideas about this disease does not fit that bill. What a horrible situation.
 
Typical gaslighting junk.

I don't see the point of republishing these documents, they are exactly identical to the hundreds of similar ones written over the last several decades. They all say the same thing, all without evidence, all aspirational toxic positivity. The substance is the exact same as the early Wessely stuff or any of its hundreds of identical derivatives.

It clearly isn't just Hollywood that has a problem with remakes.
 
InitialConditions said:
It would be good for someone to catalogue these NHS materials. Does anyone do this or know of anyone who does?
Click to expand...

For the past six months or so every new link I see come up I link it to the internet archive. Sometimes someone has beaten me to this other times I'm rewarded with a 'First Archive' button. I've also gone looking on occasion for old materials to archive, some of it thanks to people who link it here. Occasionally those yield a new link. I spent some time on Cochrane for a while doing this also.

But this might not be what you mean rather something more organised?
 
Snowdrop said:
For the past six months or so every new link I see come up I link it to the internet archive. Sometimes someone has beaten me to this other times I'm rewarded with a 'First Archive' button. I've also gone looking on occasion for old materials to archive, some of it thanks to people who link it here. Occasionally those yield a new link. I spent some time on Cochrane for a while doing this also.

But this might not be what you mean rather something more organised?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by the internet archive? As in archive.org?
 
Willow said:
I've read as much of this as I can stomach. For the most part I find their therapy built upon a convoluted pile of horsesh__. Their basic premise is totally wrong. My heart goes out to anyone subjected to their nonsense. They are so sure of themselves that I fear the only way to get through to them is for they themselves to come down with ME/CFS. There is a vital place for health counseling to help young people with ME/CFS, or anyone with any serious chronic illness, but I'm afraid their convoluted ideological ideas about this disease does not fit that bill. What a horrible situation.
Click to expand...
Perhaps of note is the role of Loades. Her recent papers abound with the same worldview.
ECs successor ?
 
I have not yet fully read this Manual, but, beyond the need to comment on many specific points that I will hopefully later return to, it interesting that the overall tone and content is, as already been pointed out, an unfailingly positive presentation of hopeful assertions as evidenced scientific truths, giving no hint that there might be any debate or controversy. For example when referring to the NICE guidelines it gives no hint that the current ME/CFS guidelines are widely disputed and currently being rewritten.

Further, as far as I have currently read, there is no encouragement for its target audience to investigate further, no indication of source materials or further reading. It strikes me that this is intended to boost willing acolytes rather than train understanding independent informed professionals.

Obviously it was never intended to be a scientific text, but is it normal for such a handbook to be quite so unhelpful for those using it who might want to understand more. There is a role for propaganda, but how healthy is it for practitioners to be guided away from any thing beyond pure propaganda.
 
I see they talk about all sorts of relaxation therapies.
Personally, I'd be wary of doing anything close to hypnosis with therapists you want to remain sceptical of as both during hypnosis and also even after it, one can be more suggestible and less critical/sceptical. This isn't just an issue with mainstream therapies but also complementary and alternative therapies. I reckon that lots of things that involve your closing your eyes may involve a hypnotic-type state.

There are lots of relaxation recordings out there; you don't need to use one from your CBT therapist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom