Nature: A reboot for chronic fatigue syndrome research

Where did Jon Stone pop up from I wonder? It seems that Edinburgh neurology wants to get in on the act but why tag along with this little whine?

 

But debate involves two sides arguing, if one loses their mind it undermines their own credibility which is a good thing. I'm glad your on our side but most docs don't go hunting for the minutiae of obscure diseases they rarely enounter, they digest what they read from "informed" sources.

 

But the irony here is that the 'informed source', i.e. Nature has said CBT and GET are looking dodgy to the people that matter. Sharpe and Chalder have started a name dropping match they cannot win. They bring in Cochrane - very respectable and worthy. They bring in Jon Stone, whoever he may be. But the most respectable and worthy king of the castle is none other than a rag called Nature. If nobody takes Nature seriously then nobody can take anyone seriously - because to be taken seriously is to be in Nature. And that will be transparently obvious to anyone who rarely encounters ME/CFS reading Nature - 'Who are these wallys?' they will say. People love schadenfreude. They will gloat over someone being made small by Nature - because they know that you are only made small by Nature if your goal in life is to be made big by Nature.

 

Looking dodgy is not enough, it needs quashing yesterday.
There is currently a child about to be taken away from her parents and put into forced GET and it appears unstoppable at present. Looking dodgy won't save her nor is it saving any of us from their attacks, the wikipedia article which is what most people see when they search for ME/CFS on google is protected from reality, when edits are made backed up with references they are quickly deleted, so the public can't easily learn the truth, they still learn the PACE type lies. They can keep digging to learn more but the official line is still CBT/GET. When your enemy is on the defensive you can ease off or make sure the job gets finished.
Sorry if this sounds preachy and i don't mean to attack you personally.

 

I cannot quite see what it has to do with the thread. An own goal from the other side is better than nothing as far as I can see. As I see it a further response to something so pathetic would just look like a pantomime 'no it isn't, yes it is'. Like awarding the own gaolers a free penalty kick.

 

We did get off topic but i would support a reply, anyone who comes across their statements and doesn't know better would be exposed to facts instead of sham opinions presented as real.

 

According to Google he was creator of the Muppets.

 

Is that a freudian slip @Cheshire?

I admit reading his kinda guff does cause me extreme iredness!

 

Michael Sharpe didn't declare all his COIs though, did he?

 

And there was I thinking how he had, over the years, been wronged.

 

Amy says she may lurk here for a bit. I said she was welcome.

 

Amy is very welcome to lurk.
Amy, if you'd like to join in with the discussion we'd be delighted.

 

"Ok so the PACE trial was a big bag of shit and failed to prove efficacy for CBT an GET but other trials think CBT and GET are good and they used the same methods we did in PACE".

Not even trying to defend PACE.

Laughable response.

 

Ye well just let them try, ill tell my daddy on them and my daddy is a policeman!!!!!

 

What is that supposed to mean?
Is that just part of their standard response to criticism, imply that the critics are engaged in stigmatising?

 

It's sad that the UK establishment is still, for the most part, pretending that there are no issues with PACE.

I think that's because this isn't just about PACE but also about other commonly held views concerning various "medically unexplained symptoms" and mental illnesses. The methodology in PACE, which seems to be widely in this particular area of medicine, is so poor that with it they could easily "prove" that homeopathy is effective for any of these conditions. The situation is akin to banks that are too big to fail.

In reality a portion of medicine is still operating according to 18-19th century beliefs that have never adequately been tested and are just assumed to be true. And if the data says "no, psychotherapy has no effect in these conditions, which goes against the commonly held belief that the symptoms have an emotional origin" they just manipulate the data.

There is a revolution waiting to happen.

 

When that fails they will start quoting Phil Parker.

 

So he is the mastermind behind the SMC!!?

 

I wonder just how much of this is about people protecting and trying to justify their jobs. They don't want their gravy train to shudder to a halt. It doesn't seem to matter that they're continuing to destroy other people's lives rather than go do something actually useful.