- Messages
- 5,256
- Likes
- 32,032
I think Jonathan Edwards is right that it would be too easy to defend against a case at present, though I know first hand GET causes severe and obvious harms. It did for me. The difference was stark and very directly linked. The problem is that it is not currently formally recorded well (if at all). I'd like to see a campaign to raise the issue as a potential problem with the aim of appropriate mandatory follow up of all patients in the UK so that better data can be collected. Those giving out GET have an indenture to do the opposite at present, to hide any reported harms. That is an unacceptable situation that must change.
Of course, GET should be withdrawn anyway as the research shows it doesn't work anyway.
Of course, GET should be withdrawn anyway as the research shows it doesn't work anyway.
Which is why I think we end up with the conclusion that GET should just be discontinued, or at least not recommended, because trial evidence shows little or no beneficial effect. It might be possible to argue that the level of evidence required for harm is lower than for benefit, but if so I suspect that what Tom has already produced is as good as can be achieved.