We seem to have strayed somewhat from the subject of this thread, namely
@Jonathan Edwards' submission to the Scottish Government petition committee.
Since it has already been submitted, there's not much point further discussing the finer points of editing, or indeed the broader topic of good and not so good editors.
I'd like to look more closely at the key arguments Jonathan makes which I haven't seen before put so clearly and succinctly. I have just re-read the document, and found these points particularly valuable, and worth emphasising in submissions to NICE and organisations that commission care.
Points that I found particularly helpful are:
Some history of how it went wrong - no medical specialism taking ownership of ME, so it ending up in the backwater of rehab. and therapy and psychiatry where it doesn't belong.
The problems with PACE - definitely worth spelling out, and a good idea not to go into all the flaws, but to focus on the ones that make the data invalid.
I particularly like the conclusion that PACE was useful in demonstrating that the 'unhelpful beliefs' theory is false.
And the focus on what to put in place of CBT/GET is important, as there seems to be an argument that these treatments have to be left in place because there's nothing else to offer. The point is well made that it is better to stop wasting money on treatments that are 'causing unnecessary distress' and instead to provide proper diagnostic services and 'useful care'.
I think I'll send it to my MP when I finally get around to writing to him...