Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Lou Corsius, Sep 23, 2017.
Dutch Health Council think it is needed to add quality to the IOM report on MECFS
Dutch Health Council misinformed parliament in 2016 about IOM. One can buy a membership there. Less scrutiny.
It's a real conspiracy against patients fighting for their lives.
Thanks for posting the videos @Lou Corsius. Shocking! The second one sounds like stand-up comedy!!
That is how it works overhere. The CBT/GET scientists are on all strategic positions.
The guy next to him seems to be very nervous and impressed by the bullshit van Gool is claiming. Blegh
The guy next to him is prof dr Hans Severens, vice president of the Health Council and co-author of a study concerning the cost-effectiveness of CBT/GET together with Gijs Bleijenberg. He works at the university in Rotterdam and is doing work for NICE (see homepage Health Council https://www.gezondheidsraad.nl/en/about-us/the-council/presidency/prof-jl-severens ) https://www.researchgate.net/public...py_for_patients_with_chronic_fatigue_syndrome
The IOM report was the only large scale evidence based report on ME and CFS, ever. I would like to see them do better. Genuinely. Sadly I have zero faith in their capacity to even do half as well. My message to them is please prove me wrong.
There are lots of things wrong with the IOM report, but its still the best we have in evidence based medicine.
Its also worth nothing that the AHRQ now has the view that there is no evidence that CBT or GET work in ME.
The first two Cochrane reviews had close involvement of some PACE trial authors, and appears to have failed to properly assess the evidence. "Cochrane" is not a rubber stamp for quality. Every single review can and should be considered critically. Without that the Cochrane principles are for nothing.
By my reading of the EBM rankings I would rate the entire CBT/GET claim at about anecdotal, due to downgrading all the way to the bottom over failure after failure in methodology. In other words, its just opinion. Many reviewers seem to forget that failures in a study should lead to downgrading. The failures in this area seem to be both entrenched and pervasive. They are also mostly blatantly obvious, and yet author after author miss them, time and again.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.