Journo found Uk cfs clinics urged to manipulate figures to keep funding

Forestvon

Forestvon

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
I cant access the link I had to an article some time ago in possibly the independent but unsure saying that cfs clinics in the uk were urged to manipulate success figures to keep their funding for the following year. so no wonder dropouts went unrecorded.
has anyone got it please?
 
Forestvon said:
But cfs clinics were mainly run by psychs and ran same risks
Click to expand...
It's also obvious that they can't report real numbers, which is the same as manipulating figures. It's still a lie even if they believe it. If they did report real data, they couldn't also do the marketing reporting where they pretend, based on vague figures, to do anything. Their data are exactly as real as PACE's "most got back to normal", which was as blatant as a lie ever gets.

It's also a lie that they never do harm, because the harms aren't recorded. That is also manipulation.

Most of the cases aren't properly recorded and diagnosed. That's also manipulation, false reporting of health data. No different from a company reporting no accidents on site, even though there were many, they just weren't recorded. Or, actually, if it were a government agency, as most are publicly funded. There are laws against this, but clearly healthcare is exempt from it.

They literally cannot report real numbers, if they did nothing would justify their funding. Their numbers are fantasy numbers, missing many real ones, with fake ones emphasized for no other reason than to turn a failure into the lying appearance of... not failure.
 
rvallee said:
It's also obvious that they can't report real numbers, which is the same as manipulating figures. It's still a lie even if they believe it. If they did report real data, they couldn't also do the marketing reporting where they pretend, based on vague figures, to do anything. Their data are exactly as real as PACE's "most got back to normal", which was as blatant as a lie ever gets.

It's also a lie that they never do harm, because the harms aren't recorded. That is also manipulation.

Most of the cases aren't properly recorded and diagnosed. That's also manipulation, false reporting of health data. No different from a company reporting no accidents on site, even though there were many, they just weren't recorded. Or, actually, if it were a government agency, as most are publicly funded. There are laws against this, but clearly healthcare is exempt from it.

They literally cannot report real numbers, if they did nothing would justify their funding. Their numbers are fantasy numbers, missing many real ones, with fake ones emphasized for no other reason than to turn a failure into the lying appearance of... not failure.
Click to expand...

I didn’t think the UK specialist ME/CFS routinely recorded outcomes, though wasn’t there was a study looking at their outcomes over a fixed period which found that people attending ended up working fewer hours and claiming higher levels of benefits. We do know that they had no system in place for recording any adverse events. Given under the old NICE guidelines the specialist centres were aimed at treating ME/CFS, the only outcomes available are an inditement of GET/CBT and suggested that patients could even have then have done better if these services had been discontinued.
 
Peter Trewhitt said:
I didn’t think the UK specialist ME/CFS routinely recorded outcomes, though wasn’t there was a study looking at their outcomes over a fixed period which found that people attending ended up working fewer hours and claiming higher levels of benefits. We do know that they had no system in place for recording any adverse events. Given under the old NICE guidelines the specialist centres were aimed at treating ME/CFS, the only outcomes available are an inditement of GET/CBT and suggested that patients could even have then have done better if these services had been discontinued.
Click to expand...
They certainly asked participants to fill in a chunk of questionnaires at least twice- I was not in any trial
 
I assumed their outcomes were based on the “improvement” :whistle: in our questionnaire responses.

I definitely remember they had people sitting filling them right at the end of the last session in in the presence of the course leaders and I said I would take mine home and send it in as I wanted to think about my responses. Obviously timing when everyone was in a jolly mood no influence on their thinking at all…….

it just reminded me of work training when they would get you to fill in feedback and having worked with trainers I knew they called them happy sheets.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom