Conversation

Show replies
Replying to
It's a 'soft walk back' - 'recovery' becomes a 'decrease in symptoms', CBT/GET becomes 'rehabilitation', and it's only a Trial - which has no impact on guidelines or treatment.
5
42
Replying to and
Two faced hypocrisy. If they genuinely believed that GET was harming people in the real world because of bad implementation, why do nothing to change that? I think they don't believe it does harm, they think patients are just hysterical and confusing muscle soreness with harm.
1
25
Show replies
A randomised control study is not supposed to have a fixed destination, but should follow wherever the destination leads. You thus virtually admit that the PACE Trial was always intended to reach a particular result, and the adjustments along the way were necessary to get there.
Image
1
22
Show replies
Replying to
Much of the neuroscience is revealing the pathways of recovery.The 'ability' of the therapist to 'transmit' hope of recovery is the engine of that recovery;any particular therapy, eg CBT, is the rail on which it travels.
4
Replying to and
I am confused. The therapist I had implied that I wanted to be sick and my perfectionism was the problem. Total nonsense. I found the whole thing just plain annoying (except the 1 session on pacing). Besides no medicine + no research = no hope. Gas lighting doesn't help.
9
Show replies