rvallee
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Hard to find the right forum for... whatever this confused mess is from the editor-in-chief of the Scandinavian Journal of primary health care.
Managing functional disorders: opportunities and threats
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02813432.2020.1718304
One notable thing is the citations. All are either pilot studies, position papers or general musings, the height of cherry-picking. This editorial advocates for a treatment paradigm based entirely on opinions and very weak arguments, which in itself is incredibly unprofessional.
It speaks of CFS as a functional syndrome, then links to a Cochrane paper which explicitly excludes CFS, as evidence for psychotherapy used for "somatic disorders". The author has clearly not read the paper. I did not read the paper, I only skimmed it, and I managed to find the part where it says that CFS is explicitly excluded.
And, yes, we are a "threat", although it only says it passively. Did you know that Michael Sharpe has left the field of CFS research last year? AGAIN? I don't know if that was before, after or between the papers he has published since. Michael Sharpe is: The Quantum CFS Researcher.
To say this is a confused mess is an insult to most confused messes out there.
I honestly find it hard to believe that turning in this tripe as a college paper would not lead to a failing grade.
I think we can clearly see where things are going, with GET being dropped, it's all in on CBT and various psychotherapies, as if GET never happened, as if they never pushed for it and insisted it was deconditioning.
This bit is especially insulting:
And of course it pushes the Jon Stone crap. Because reasons. This is basically a personal blog rant, frankly.
Medicine is experiencing some serious growing pains here. Has someone considered turning it off and on again?
Managing functional disorders: opportunities and threats
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/02813432.2020.1718304
One notable thing is the citations. All are either pilot studies, position papers or general musings, the height of cherry-picking. This editorial advocates for a treatment paradigm based entirely on opinions and very weak arguments, which in itself is incredibly unprofessional.
It speaks of CFS as a functional syndrome, then links to a Cochrane paper which explicitly excludes CFS, as evidence for psychotherapy used for "somatic disorders". The author has clearly not read the paper. I did not read the paper, I only skimmed it, and I managed to find the part where it says that CFS is explicitly excluded.
And, yes, we are a "threat", although it only says it passively. Did you know that Michael Sharpe has left the field of CFS research last year? AGAIN? I don't know if that was before, after or between the papers he has published since. Michael Sharpe is: The Quantum CFS Researcher.
To say this is a confused mess is an insult to most confused messes out there.
I honestly find it hard to believe that turning in this tripe as a college paper would not lead to a failing grade.
I think we can clearly see where things are going, with GET being dropped, it's all in on CBT and various psychotherapies, as if GET never happened, as if they never pushed for it and insisted it was deconditioning.
This bit is especially insulting:
It is not the ritual that is important, it's that it is supposed to be part of a process. The illusion, or pretense, of those things has nothing to do with the actual thing. Pretending to care about something is very different from actually caring for it, let alone understanding it.
And of course it pushes the Jon Stone crap. Because reasons. This is basically a personal blog rant, frankly.
Medicine is experiencing some serious growing pains here. Has someone considered turning it off and on again?
