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 (FM), 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.
This is a claim that is impervious to testing and falsification. It is not science. It is impossible for the patient to prove that they have adequate belief, motivation, or faith, and hence the 'therapist' can always avoid responsibility for the failure of the 'therapy'.Dr. Vogt: Treatment like this is not like a pill, it needs to be believed in, the patient needs to have some motivation and has to put some faith in it.
Are we therefore guilty of global warming, religious extremism, poverty, recessions and depressions, and maybe the biggest disaster of them all, entropy? [satire]Not only is it our fault if we don't get better with CBT or LP - it is also our fault if _others_ don't get better with CBT or LP.
Wow.
I suspect the Dunning Kruger effect is a major factor here. Disappointed to see that people like this are awarded with PhD scholarships.Essentially Vogt is admitting to being a faith healer. Which is weird, normally it's desperate patients who will put their faith in cures where belief is the primary element, not people with Doctor in front of their name.
Are we therefore guilty of global warming, religious extremism, poverty, recessions and depressions, and maybe the biggest disaster of them all, entropy? [satire]
Anything can happen if you just believe.
Not only is it our fault if we don't get better with CBT or LP - it is also our fault if _others_ don't get better with CBT or LP.
Wow.
I suspect the Dunning Kruger effect is a major factor here. Disappointed to see that people like this are awarded with PhD scholarships.
By starting with a hypothesis and selecting the methods and results that fit their needs, dismissing or discarding the rest (including all of the objective results) and obstructing the efforts of others to explore the inconsistencies, the PACE investigators engaged in what is more accurately described as “marketing” not science.
[...]
Until then, consider me to be a skeptic. I will proudly wear the label of “vexatious” or even “methodological terrorist” if it makes marketing specialists masquerading as scientists feel better about themselves.
A new definition of rational science seems to emerge here: take a Youtube video you found on the internet, claiming that someone was cured with a treatment. And here it is, you have the ultimate proof!Looks like we have a mutual admiration society here.
Can somebody conversant with the appropriate technologies question the use of the word irrational? it seems possible to argue that the conclusions were incorrect but in what way were they irrational?
In Part 2 of this post I’ll examine the question of whether any of the PACE therapies, especially GET, produced harm.