They really need to understand and communicate that the data clearly demonstrates that CBT and GET is not effective.
That is different from saying there is a lack of evidence for it.
We have clear evidence against it.
I hope they also go after the decision to not assess the quality of the individual studies.
Nerli gets a few mentions, even though the data showed that they intervention is ineffective and they had the usual issues with blinding and subjective outcomes.
The problem remains that basically all the BPS successes are anecdotal and belief is essential for effect. And there is some scientific research which is applied as hypothesis to ME/CFS but rendered as scientific backing as if it were proof.
We have evidence against it being proven science. We have evidence re CBT/GET that trialled by science it failed, but we do not have evidence that noone has benefited post/prompter?? re. any of these things. We do not have counter evidence in THEIR actual terms, though they speak and behave as if their terms were in fact the terms of science, but in reality they are not. They will go on merrily undisturbed by our protestations and for my part they are welcome to their "we have helped people, you know" but not to "and that means we understand and cure ME, just sit down and listen, dualist" .
They are not about objectivity, objectivity is dangerous to the belief element. Mickel and LP and CBT/GET theory cannot all be objectively true at the same time. Either they are addressing different conditions (I am OK with that as a splitter or they are addressing one element (how to calm and balance the autonomic system for example), which is key in some regardless of the subgroup, but their explicitly stated, conflicting "understandings" of ME cannot each be true and comprehensive all at once. They are really splitters (as am I) but their methods each , require a lumping approach ("we cure all "ME" in rightminded folk" is essential dogma, because of the belief element). "We can help some somewhat "does not cut the unbelief mustard.
We must concentrate on newcomers to the debate, who are easily taken in and cannot understand why we make such a fuss and object to people who want to help. At the same time, as a splitter, I can say "Ok you helped some, good luck to you" and never an honest word out of their mouths. because they cannot be honest if the magic is to work.
In fact I would not trust one of them if they turned round and said "we got it all wrong" - might just be a new way of getting liaison. Harsh ?? Well, their reductionist commitment to subjectivist interpretatios of ME hoisted their flag and set them sail in in one direction years ago. They are not flat earthers and they may get some people back to fairer climes but for all their proclaimed non dualism they are the ones who "think" (only the unintelligent ones really "think " it) there is only one way to the rising sun.
To paraphrase the old comedian Dave Allen "May your therapy go with you"
