Collecting improvements, until there's a cure.
Ah, they fooled me. I saw the Previous Article and Next Article buttons and assumed this piece in between was also an article. Silly me.That's a letter to the editor, not an article. See the "Correspondence" right over the title. If you look at the current issue, you can see the Articles section long after the Correspondence section.
Me, too!Ah, they fooled me. I saw the Previous Article and Next Article buttons and assumed this piece in between was also an article. Silly me.
Good letter anyway. Well written and concise.
I'm still astonished that The Lancet, of all journals, published this letter instead of trashing it the moment they got it. I consider this progress.
Credit where due. A number of letters from patients have been formally published by various journals, including The Lancet for the original PACE paper (2011).I'm still astonished that The Lancet, of all journals, published this letter instead of trashing it the moment they got it. I consider this progress.
Assuming it's the same Robert Courtney, he's been active in campaigning for re-evaluation of PACE before:Anyone know anything about the author Robert Courtney ?
They always respond to anything that threatens their narrative, just with more incestuous papers praising the effectiveness of CBT and GET.
Worth watching to see if there's a response from the BPS bunker.
This is the reply from the authors, I believe: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(15)00114-5/fulltext
Seems like the BPS bunker is gonna stick with their faulty illness beliefs for a while longer... Letting go is hard, I get that. Nothing that a lil' CBT couldn't fix though! Just gra-dual-ly let go...Most correspondents make criticisms of the trial as a whole, which we have already addressed in detail, and which might reflect the apparent campaign to bring the robust findings of the trial into question. (...)
We intend to further explore multiple mediator effects and the potential effects of outcomes on mediators in future papers. Some correspondents suggest that objective outcomes are more important than self-report measures. In view of the subjective nature of fatigue and the overriding importance of the patients own judgement of their functioning, we believe that self-rated outcomes remain the most important ones. Although it is entirely understandable that some patients with chronic fatigue syndrome are cautious about engaging in activity and exercise, increasing those activities gradually offers both improved functioning and reduced fatigue in some patients. Our findings also suggest that better targeting of fearful beliefs in treatment may result in better outcomes.