Will have to see if it makes print copy.
It did! On page 18 of today's (erm... yesterdays) iPaper. Great work by Scott.
OMF and #MEAction Network tweeting it:
No, I meant the "63% recover within six months" must be wrong. There is no way that an website-based therapy is going to produce a 63% recovery rate, unless you are defining "recovery" to mean something other than its normal dictionary meaning (which is what they often do in these psychological studies: you find they redefine the term "recovery" to mean something different to the normal use of that word).
Or unless there are non-ME/CFS patients in the study cohort, due to sloppy inclusion criteria in the study.
Oh right, sorry. Yes of course 63% 'recovery' is meaningless. I guess I took that for granted. But with the criterion being so loose (within 2 SD of controls), I'm surprised more of the usual treatments group weren't also straight into that, on the first review (and why they've been quoting 8% when the graphed data, in follow up report, showed closer to double that.) I kind of assumed that the starting 0% recovered data point is actually just an assumption, that if they are in the trial they are ill, but might involve different measurement criterion to the later assessments, as PACE did. Sorry, didn't manage to digest both those Dutch papers. Definitely a lot of non-true-CFS persons included too, as you say.
Although it is called CBT an awful lot of it is also education for parents and children about living with CFS/ME and balancing activity and rest/sleep hygiene. Most of my sons visits to the "specialist" are by SKYPE anyway so this is just one step further away and can be done without appointment- less staffing for NHS.
I'd would have said that providing advice, support and 'home appointments' are the redeeming factors of this FITNET fiasco. But are you saying these things are already provided (to an extent, in some places)? That's good, if so. And yes, who would want to be a parent in such an impossible situation. Eek. :-\
For me, the whole: 'it's no miracle cure, but this is the best option we have available NOW' rings so empty, when all FITNET actual is, is a fairly modest trial that will take 6 years to report back. That's not 'now', that's not a stop-gap emergency measure, as it will change nothing for almost everyone. How long as that been a argument for psychological interventions in the past, already? Decades? As has been said, I fully expect these new, precise biomarker/causative findings, within the next year or so, will blow a hole right through the FITNET, etc, approach.