I like wishcare. In reference to wishcycling.
Because it's mostly about ordinary people doing ordinary acts that make zero real difference while the real problem, the companies manufacturing products that can't be recycled but pretend that they can, suck up giant amounts of profit for themselves, while the whole population not only has to pay for the harm today, but will have to pay for the whole cleanup later.
I guess it’s actually evidence-washing , but the issue is what they are trying to wash away is the fact that what they called evidence was called out as having its pants down for cfs so they washed it thru the generic rehab where you just need to call ‘orthodoxy and assume’ as pretend sophist evidence claims as if you aren’t making up stuff that happens to be exactly what harmed those same people
EDITED to add:
'invent' a new dept and association and pretend that it isn't the exact same people in it who are just trying yet again to pretend that they haven't spend the last decades coming up with nil and creating harm to the point where it was clear their orthodoxy and preferred job doesn't work, so they pretend by having a new name it's all 'new' or just 'common sense'. NOt that said stuff was tested and shown to be an issue and a big old edict said for them to stop.
Pretend to lose the body of work for the last few decades that was so poor it was very low quality in order you can claim more funding pretending the same people going at the same area with the same thing that harms is OK as long as you make sure the quality of work is
even lower.
It is just a rebrand of the dangerous cloth-ears. Even worse, clearly the focus/lesson-learned by this area of physio (or is it all physio apart from eg physiosforme?) is for them to be even more dangerous and focus on 'how did we let
any methodology in the door at all' and lobbying to this time be allowed to continue but not make the mistake of letting
anything normal be measured regarding the impact of what they do.
And the fact they are doing this so fervently makes it clear that despite the callous indifference meaning they consciously bullied people to never come back and show them the harm they've done and refused to see when they did stand in front of them, I think that for those involved with this measure it shows there was/is intent. ANd full knowledge.
The absolute insistence of never measuring harms, which them becomes never measuring longer term or acknowledging real outcomes and disability caused by them, becoming increasingly sinister deconstruction of even cardinal symptoms and rewriting them.
Just so that they can keep hammering away at the same bodies they harmed and made disabled to make them even more so and pretend 'only their evidence on their terms counts'. And that can only be coerced peer-pressured scores on satisfaction with perceived threats for the wrong answers that involve breaching research regs because they mislead what they will be used for. And dodgy retrospectives being done on it.
And here is the thing: what have physios even got to do with ME/CFS anyway? All the history of it shows they never had a thing to offer for the condition itself, and that some of them have caused potentially huge disability. Along of course with the attitude issue of a profession, or section of it happy to take itself down the toilet standards-wise.
The obvious claim when you think of physiosforme is that those who do actually do science
are checking whether a treatment harms, and
that is where the 'professional' part is supposed to come from. SO they are better than those who haven't been taught to think critically and scientifically and have professional standards, licenses and responsibilities vs drafting a load of randoms to deliver a course to a script.
SO when they as a section of the profession are doing the very opposite regarding their target 'patients' one does need to be asking questions about this
choice? And claims of not being culpable and foreseeing exactly what they are doing?
And the person at the top of this new 'rehab stuff' is quite capable of reading. Even if they
want to disagree with it on the basis of what they want to do as a job it doesn't mean they haven't been trained to be capable of understanding exactly what the new guideline analysis said and warned. So an attitude of 'making sure measures are
less robust' should be seen as an outrageous problem that comes with absolute personal liability - given anyone reading the guidelines and recent history must have read 'there is a safety risk here' and that is instead of saying 'so we need to monitor we are being safe' suggesting the important bit is making sure 'noone can monitor if it harms'?
Or am I confused?
How different is it to a CEO getting red flags that the brakes mightn't be working for certain cars from a company and instead of looking into it and doing a recall and changing the team/debrief on what went wrong, someone else has waltzed in offering to take it on as is and continue the same thing under a new 'brand' .... but this time making sure that they stop asking questions about whether the brakes failed, whether anyone was harmed due to this and particularly any follow-up after the first few weeks. In fact deconstruct 'braking' in your surveys to disappear it as a construct. And only measure whether those on the production line have a smart uniform and turn up on time and take a big old list of things about the drivers in case you need to scan it so that when they crash you can infer it was caused by their personality type? or maybe because they 'seem stressed' (because their brakes don't work) a piece of research suggesting that is the cause and measuring
whether that fixes the brakes issue/proves there is no issue with the brakes by giving out mindfulness to a selected sample and saying 2 people 'liked it'.
