Cheshire
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,129
There is so much to say about this piece. Unbelievably wrong on so many points...
They claim CBT for ME is not aimed at a cure, which is in total contradiction with the intent of the PACE team.
Their more dishonest implicit claim is that CBT for ME equates CBT for cancer. That makes any person critical of the PACE look like a dumb and mean person stubbornly against any psychological help for PwME.
Their critic of the diagnostic criteria is so messed up, that I don't know where to start...
This sentence made me groan too. It is utter nonsense. Do they imply that in fact, the efficacy of a trial is a matter of personal judgment?
They claim CBT for ME is not aimed at a cure, which is in total contradiction with the intent of the PACE team.
Their more dishonest implicit claim is that CBT for ME equates CBT for cancer. That makes any person critical of the PACE look like a dumb and mean person stubbornly against any psychological help for PwME.
Their critic of the diagnostic criteria is so messed up, that I don't know where to start...
Some opponents claim that it is possible to use existing case definition to predict treatment response, and they often shorten debates by circular arguments like stating that people who are diagnosed with ME and report improvement following CBT or GET must have been misdiagnosed with ME in the first place. There is actually no evidence that existing case criteria for CFS/ME are suitable for this purpose (Brurberg et al, 2014), and the PACE trial contributes important data on the relationship between case definitions and the effectiveness of CBT and GET. Some critics devaluate the findings in PACE because patients were recruited according to the Oxford criteria, forgetting that PACE participants were stratified according to much narrower case definitions similar to the CDC-1994 and London ME criteria (White et al, 2011). The effectiveness of CBT and GET was consistent no matter what case criteria that were used (White et al, 2011).
HahahaWhere he [keith Geraghty] sees dishonesty and fraud, we see a transparent, well-conducted and rigorous trial.
Apart from the random use of commas, this looks like the output from a random word generator (and makes about as much sense).Whether individual patients find the expected efficacy to be useful, will to some extent, be a matter of personal preferences.
"expected efficacy"? What's that, then? Is it efficacy or not? Or is it hypothetical efficacy, that BPS speciality?
"useful"? "a matter of personal preferences [sic]"? What is he saying here? That the treatment is efficacious but in ways that a sick person might not find useful? Like, er, not making them any less sick? Or making them more sick?
This sentence made me groan too. It is utter nonsense. Do they imply that in fact, the efficacy of a trial is a matter of personal judgment?