Evidence of GET style therapy harm in me/cfs

nafione

nafione

Established Member (Voting Rights)
I suspect there a good threads discussing this topic but can’t figure out the right keywords to find what I’m looking for (maybe I’ve done too much today and need to go to bed)

I’m exploring whether misdiagnosis or delayed diagnosis of ME/CFS could support a viable legal claim (e.g., negligence). It appears the core elements of a cause of action could be met—duty, breach, causation, and damages.

I’m especially interested in evidence showing that pushing past limits causes harm. Someone mentioned to me that the pace data might do so after it was rebutted/reviewed?

I’ve been brainstorming about advocacy for a while, but I’ve also learned that there is nothing like a lawyer and court of law for enacting change. The moment it is more expensive to dismiss us, we will get a lot more attention.
 
From the reanalysis of the PACE data:
The adverse events measures collected during the trial included: serious adverse events (death, hospitalisation, etc.); serious deterioration (a broader category that included a serious adverse event, sustained decrease in self-reported physical function or overall health, or withdrawal due to worsening); and non-serious adverse events. Serious adverse events were significantly more prevalent in the GET group (8%) than in the Control group (4%); there were no other statistically significant group differences.
Click to expand...
link.springer.com

Rethinking the treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome—a reanalysis and evaluation of findings from a recent major trial of graded exercise and CBT - BMC Psychology

Background The PACE trial was a well-powered randomised trial designed to examine the efficacy of graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) for chronic fatigue syndrome. Reports concluded that both treatments were moderately effective, each leading to recovery in over...
link.springer.com link.springer.com
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
We have discussed this at length in the past. I do not see any possibility of there being evidence that could be used legally. Proving harm would require a formal study of harms in a controlled trial and we simply do not have that.
Click to expand...
It seems like the medical community acknowledges that delayed diagnosis (of anything) is harmful. Is that a fair assessment? I understand legal action cannot be based on a generalization, but it's useful framing.

Given the study you describe would be unethical, we're in a bit of a bind! I'll do some more research but it seems like similar cases have accepted argument on balance of probability, especially when scientific data is unavailable.
 
nafione said:
It seems like the medical community acknowledges that delayed diagnosis (of anything) is harmful.
Click to expand...

I don't think that can be considered as definite as legal arguments require. There are porbably lots of diagnoses where delay causes no harm. There are lots of diagnoses that are better not made (benign congenital malformations that get operated on by overenthusiastic surgeons with dire results for instance. I am not sure that anyone has good reason to think delay in diagnosis of ME/CFS causes harm in itself. If anything the harm being condired here is like that for the malformations - it tends to lead to treatments that may be harmful. So I don;t see any traction there.
nafione said:
it seems like similar cases have accepted argument on balance of probability, especially when scientific data is unavailable.
Click to expand...

They tend to be rather different in nature and balance of probability is all we ever have in science - the balance is nearly always derived from carefully gathered data.

The main difference is that most harms from treatments that get recognised involve rather unusual events. A number of drugs cause aplastic anaemia, which is otherwise very rare. Asbestos causes mesothelioma, which is otherwise rare. Moreover, you can count numbers of these things easily because they are black and white. Convincing anyone that a treatment is responsible for progression of an ullness itself is very hard. Which is why I advised Roche not to use a drug for rheumatoid arthritis that appeared to produce lesions in monkeys that would produce symptoms very like rheumatoid arthritis. It would have been impossible to know what was happening in a trial.
 
Concentric_Spiral said:
That was brutal to scan through. You and others have put so much work into this it's incredible.
Click to expand...
The fatal core flaws and dishonesty in the BPS arguments have been laid out in detail many times over, including in the formal literature and submissions and reports.

All the BPS cult are doing is shamelessly recycling the same shit over and over, louder and louder, and claiming this is legit scientific reproduction that proves their case.

And they are getting away with it. Medical science, with honourable individual exceptions, seems incapable of stopping them. Or just completely uninterested in doing so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom