Jeannette Burmeister acquired foia document re. P2P

[alex3619]

Indeed. It's very difficult to know the motives of individuals, so it's rather dangerous territory to assume to know them, esp when discussing complex areas of advocacy for which there is little agreement about the best course of action.

I think this also applies to many psychiatrists. They believe what they are taught. I recall reading the book by Paula Caplan who was a consulting psychologist I think. The DSM (-III I think) asked her to help refine one of the definitions. She was absolutely shocked once she got into it to see bad or distorted science, opinion over science, and no accountability or proper testing. She eventually resigned or something, or was fired. She started a believer, then became a vocal critic. We cannot know the motives of even psychiatrists or psychologists.

What we can talk about is outcomes and justification. There is no good science for most of it. The outcomes of CBT/GET for ME are either pathetic or bad. These are an issue regardless of the actual view of the psych.

That last comment also applies to advocacy.

 

[Valentijn]

Another new post and link to documents is up at http://thoughtsaboutme.com/2014/11/...art-5-mecfs-p2p-violates-nih-rules-woot-woot/ . It sounds like this batch is about the general designing the P2P process. Basically people getting paid to sit around and "brainstorm" rather pointlessly regarding frivolous details