Thats actually a really good brief, succinct overview of the situation, and gratifying to think we can do a massive class action suit in the yrs to come.
@Andy If you are contacting this law firm. Could you advise them that there is an error of fact in their statement. Nice has not yet removed GET from the guidelines.
Too crashed to send the sentence.
EDIT: under heading " what does this mean for the future?"
But
@TiredSam &
@Andy...if someone does contact him, i think it'd also be a good idea to make him aware that the NICE guideline was
not based on the PACE trial but was written 4yrs before PACE came out. The guideline (I know you know all this but just stating it for any less informed readers) was based on trials with the same issues & methodological flaws as PACE, & from the same researchers, but since this is involves the law, such a factual inaccuracy from the outset isnt good for credibility.
It's almost become urban myth among the slightly less informed ME community afaics, that NICE should remove CBT/GET
because PACE is now discredited, but if that inaccuracy is allowed to perpetuate, it will be so much easier for them to wriggle out of changing the guideline. The point is that (afaiaa) ALL the so called 'science' done by these researchers since they started their careers - including the studies the guideline is based on - is unreliable & should be resigned to the trash bin. That unblinded trials with subjective outcome measures are an extremely poor excuse for science & should never have been taken seriously in the first place.
Sorry slight digression from the OP, but this firm & this excellent lawyer who seems to know his stuff & could be a great ally, needs to get his facts
absolutely straight if any claims, either current or future are to be successful.
The BPSers brush away all criticism with ease it seems, and istm that they manage that sometimes because of minor factual inaccuracies on the part of our advocates. Our arguments need to be, as they say, 'whiter that white'.
