Tom Kindlon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,734
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Jacqui Wise
Jacqui Wise works as a freelance medical journalist. In this capacity she has been paid, and continues to be paid, by a range of organisations. These include publishers including the BMJ group, the Lancet group, Ocean Media Group, the WHO Bulletin, and others and communications agencies including Interaction PR. She has no stock options or shares in any pharmaceutical or healthcare companies.
Everyone dropping dead and being reanimated as flesh eating creatures of the night would make no difference to that conclusion."[White] said that the more conservative thresholds had made a difference to the results. 'However, it made no difference to our conclusion that cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy are safe and moderately effective in improving outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome.'"
How surprising . . .
'However, it made no difference to our conclusion that cognitive behaviour therapy and graded exercise therapy are safe and moderately effective in improving outcomes for chronic fatigue syndrome.'
"At long term follow up, the patients in the CBT and GET arms had formed into packs which hunted down prey in the streets, ripped their heads from their shoulders and feasted on their exposed organs and intestines. The only way in which they could be repelled was with a bullet to the head or a stake driven directly through the heart.Everyone dropping dead and being reanimated as flesh eating creatures of the night would make no difference to that conclusion.
I don't understand. Either the patients improved or they didn't. The criteria for recovery shouldn't make a difference to that.
What has happened here that means one person reads the results as an improvement whereas another reads the results as no improvement? What was the difference between the two analyses?
I can't read the article, but the title doesn't bode well - I would have preferred "uncovers truth" to "reignites row", which makes us sound, what's the word ... vexatious?
"[White] said that the more conservative thresholds had made a difference to the results. 'However, it made no difference to our conclusion...'"
CBT/GET were associated with some minor improvement in self-report outcomes that look likely to have been the result of nothing more than bias... these results were then spun to allow researchers to make bold claims about recovery that depended in a very weak definition of 'recovery'.
So the very minor improvements were amplified because of PW's methodology?
So the very minor improvements were amplified because of PW's methodology?
Along with other problems too. Going through the specific criteria used is probably the best way of understanding things. I can't think what the best summary is now. Maybe parts 1-3 of Tuller's work?
White et. al. feel justified in claiming the treatment works because transient improvement on questionnaires seems to be accepted as evidence of an effective treatment in this branch of psychiatry. It's bad science though.