• 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 register, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Persistent Physical Symptoms Reduction INtervention: a System Change & Evaluation (PRINCE Primary)

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
Via @Maxwhd on twitter.

Many of these names are familiar from the CFS world

CiVbbNhWkAAsID7.jpg large.jpg


 

duncan

Senior Member
Messages
2,240
Yeah, they are trying too hard with the whole cutesy acronym thing. The "IN" to enable PRINCE is simply a miserable fail.

Actually, it's an Orwellian stretch regardless. They are just cherry-picking letters, for God's sake.

Not so surprising when you think of it.
 
Last edited:

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
I think as usual CBT will miraculously work, regardless of the type of problem (I'm still waiting for that trial of CBT for car engine problems). As long as the trial is designed so as to be unable to distinguish CBT brainwashing from genuine improvement.

One would think that the NHS would have some interest in properly designed trials so as to avoid being misled into spending money on ineffective interventions.
 

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
I think as usual CBT will miraculously work, regardless of the type of problem (I'm still waiting for that trial of CBT for car engine problems). As long as the trial is designed so as to be unable to distinguish CBT brainwashing from genuine improvement.

One would think that the NHS would have some interest in properly designed trials so as to avoid being misled into spending money on ineffective interventions.

Indeed. Why no objective outcomes? Because they are afraid of null results.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
Did they choose PRINCE because its subservient to King's? Painful. If only they spent as much time worrying about patients as they do acronyms.

Is it harder to stop a gravy train than a supertanker and should all metaphors and similes be adjusted accordingly?
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Indeed. Why no objective outcomes? Because they are afraid of null results.

By enrolling patients whose common characteristic is mainly having symptoms that are unexplained they make it difficult to come up with sensible measures of objective improvement. Measuring activity levels or cardiopulmonry fitness would probably work for a number of conditions but not others. Or at least that is one concern that immediately comes to mind.
 
Last edited:

taniaaust1

Senior Member
Messages
13,054
Location
Sth Australia
Why two trials? To make it easier to switch outcomes or change definitions in the second study?

If one don't work out how they want it to, maybe they think they can rather then draw media spotlight to the other one instead and vanish the other. So maybe they see doing two trials as safer.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
As I pointed out to Dr undersen recently, this proposal has exactly the same approach to that of the 'Institute of Functional Medicine' and other alternative bandwagons that Dr Gundersen is so keen to debunk.

The basic message is 'We are going to treat symptoms that we know nothing about the causes of, and have not even bothered to think through what they might be, but pretend that we understand everything and can treat everything. We will set up a completely valueless trial to prove what we want to prove and anybody who disagrees is an irrational 'activist'.'

The honest thing to do when faced with unexplained symptoms is to tell the person that you do not know what the cause is so have no idea what to do. Unfortunately some medical professionals feel threatened by having to be so honest. One of them said so at the RSM meeting we had last year.
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Unfortunately some medical professionals feel threatened by having to be so honest.

Unfortunately, "the large majority" is IMO more appropriate than "some".
That doesn't mean honest medical professionals do not exist, I have met some of them, but unfortunately again, these people don't speak up, and don't go openly against the MUS and psychosomatic model.

I don't blame them, I understand why they keep quiet. My GP is teaching at the university, and the fact that he's been honest with me makes him at odds with his colleagues and in an uncomfortable situation. Some doctors suggested that he was neglecting me because he was not engaging me to consider a psychotherapy.
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
The honest thing to do when faced with unexplained symptoms is to tell the person that you do not know what the cause is so have no idea what to do.
I have had this from two Drs, and I am sticking to them like glue.

I find this rebranding exercise by Wessely, Chalder & co, given what it known about the harm their corrupt ideology is causing, beyond obscene.