Discussion in 'Other Health News and Research' started by worldbackwards, Jan 20, 2016.
Published in the Lancet:
Full letter accessible here:
and here it is in the NEJM.
This is the related piece in Physician's First Watch:
I skimmed the link worldbackwards shared. I personally don't see anything unusual in this.
They are responding to the issue using some other examples that are reasonable to consider and while we find it hypocritical I think that the issue can be easily spun to mean that they hope that by making clear their position things will improve for future trials. The past being all in the past.
I also think that in future the BPS CBT/GET advocates might do only what's absolutely necessary to respond in defense of PACE and use tactics of going on the offensive more so that we are put in a position of defending how patients and advocates see things.
I would not be surprised if even when biomarkers are found that they have already a response that suggests we have influenced our biology in some way with our mind and a disturbed mental state-- remember body and mind are one for them (in some flaky new age way that doesn't require science). We already see this with using CSS as the biological gateway explanation. They can keep this up.
I forget who to attribute to this paraphrased quote (Feynman maybe) but: Science moves forward when the status quo scientists die out.
We need to keep pushing for that new generation of scientists. Like so many ordinary casually malevolent people they (BPS) won't necessarily see justice for the harm they have committed.
That's not to say that things won't improve for us before then and that real treatment options won't be available in a limited way.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.