If it had been the three BPS departures, I would have assumed David was making a very clever play on words. But I think the one separate departure was of Charles Shepherd.
Opinion Is the RACGP HANDI recommendation of incremental physical activity for CFS/ME harming patients?, 2026, Stallard/Praet/Gupta/Smith
If it had been the three BPS departures, I would have assumed David was making a very clever play on words. But I think the one separate departure was of Charles Shepherd.
rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Something I just realized. As is tradition, HANDI responded with some whine about NICE's evaluation process being 'controversial' and flawed. Even though most of the psychobehavioral proponents implicitly agree with that evaluation, they just can't deal with how it exposed how most of what they produce is garbage.
Many 'systematic' reviews have been published over the years. Likely, there have been more 'systematic' reviews published on this topic than the number of trials in most of those reviews. Because none of them are close to being systematic reviews. The vast majority seem to hover in the 10-20 range. Cochrane's is, what, 8?
Long Covid has brought a bit of slack to this system, but even by now the number of clinical trials for various rehab modalities is easily in the hundreds, and every 'systematic' review only ever compares a handful, up to maybe about 25 at most. At this point, there has literally been too much of this type of pseudoresearch.
NICE reviewed everything, a true systematic review. So did IQWIG, the German equivalent. And they both rated the vast majority of those trials as being of such low quality as to be uninterpretable in a systematic review. But this is also part of a systematic review, otherwise it's just cherry-picking. If 90%+ of the items produced by a product line are broken, end up in the bin, it's not a reliability audit/systematic review to only look at the items that haven't been thrown in the bin.
Basically, the industry got a 3-10% mark on its work. Roughly. Most of it is just junk, and even they agree with it, because they filter them out of their bogus 'systematic' reviews. This is majorly important, because this work continues to be of the same low quality churn, and the reviews continue to cherry-pick to a degree that would send any cherry farmer into quick bankruptcy.
I'm thinking this might be a solid argument. Cochrane's review on exercise for fatigue, which they choose to apply to ME/CFS, is not a systematic review. Neither are any of the many published cherry-picked reviews. NICE is about the only true systematic review. And that's why they hate it. And the fact that it got used as is, because IQWIG recommended the handful of cherries they found palatable anyway.
They can't stand a real quality check, because other reviews play along and cherry-pick, present only the most favorable they can find. NICE didn't, because they had to conduct a true systematic review.
Honestly, our strongest argument remains how everything biopsychosocial is just dog shit quality at best, and even they agree with that. I have never seen anyone arguing against those bogus reviews with 10-15 trials, even though they effectively treat those trials the same as NICE: too low quality to even bother.
Many 'systematic' reviews have been published over the years. Likely, there have been more 'systematic' reviews published on this topic than the number of trials in most of those reviews. Because none of them are close to being systematic reviews. The vast majority seem to hover in the 10-20 range. Cochrane's is, what, 8?
Long Covid has brought a bit of slack to this system, but even by now the number of clinical trials for various rehab modalities is easily in the hundreds, and every 'systematic' review only ever compares a handful, up to maybe about 25 at most. At this point, there has literally been too much of this type of pseudoresearch.
NICE reviewed everything, a true systematic review. So did IQWIG, the German equivalent. And they both rated the vast majority of those trials as being of such low quality as to be uninterpretable in a systematic review. But this is also part of a systematic review, otherwise it's just cherry-picking. If 90%+ of the items produced by a product line are broken, end up in the bin, it's not a reliability audit/systematic review to only look at the items that haven't been thrown in the bin.
Basically, the industry got a 3-10% mark on its work. Roughly. Most of it is just junk, and even they agree with it, because they filter them out of their bogus 'systematic' reviews. This is majorly important, because this work continues to be of the same low quality churn, and the reviews continue to cherry-pick to a degree that would send any cherry farmer into quick bankruptcy.
I'm thinking this might be a solid argument. Cochrane's review on exercise for fatigue, which they choose to apply to ME/CFS, is not a systematic review. Neither are any of the many published cherry-picked reviews. NICE is about the only true systematic review. And that's why they hate it. And the fact that it got used as is, because IQWIG recommended the handful of cherries they found palatable anyway.
They can't stand a real quality check, because other reviews play along and cherry-pick, present only the most favorable they can find. NICE didn't, because they had to conduct a true systematic review.
Honestly, our strongest argument remains how everything biopsychosocial is just dog shit quality at best, and even they agree with that. I have never seen anyone arguing against those bogus reviews with 10-15 trials, even though they effectively treat those trials the same as NICE: too low quality to even bother.
yup. the argument is always that four people left. but only three were relevant to this issue, and they never actually said publicly why they left, as far as I know. but perhaps the other three were in my mind when I mis-wrote the phrase.
MrMagoo
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
There’s never been a long range study across 2+ years, certainly not 5+ or 10+. Yet this is an illness which people very rarely recover from. So they can go about in circles pretending PACE showed GET is helpful but, if that was even true (which it isn’t) that’s only in the short term.
Therefore, I say there’s no data at all on the efficacy of GET because nobody ever followed up - even though it was being used in the 90s and 00s and it’s now 2026.
Therefore, I say there’s no data at all on the efficacy of GET because nobody ever followed up - even though it was being used in the 90s and 00s and it’s now 2026.