Conversation

Replying to
2/n "The new [NICE] guidelines not only repudiate a heretofore favoured treatment approach for a particular illness, they also threaten to discredit an entire (albeit quirky) branch of medicine — and, for good measure, to cast clouds over significant swathes of psychology too"
1
25
3/n "Here is an extract from expert testimony provided by Jonathan Edwards, professor emeritus of clinical medicine at University College London" [on the #PACETrial authors trying to justify their use of post-hoc criteria rather than their original criteria] #MEcfs #CFS #CBT
Image
1
30
4/n "key shift in NICE’s approach to ME rests on their new&improved attitude to evidence quality. As Prof Edwards argues in drug trials poor quality evidence is automatically discarded as it's recognised as having no value.Bad evidence is seen as equivalent to no evidence at all"
1
23
6/n "This domineering posture has long been employed by the coterie of establishment figures who have promoted the psychological treatment of ME, particularly in the UK. The new stance from NICE suggests their influence is now waning. Argument from authority no longer holds sway"
1
20
9/n "The most common methodological problem identified in all these [#CBT & #GET] studies was “risk of bias.” We all know the reasons for this — dodgy control groups, absurd blinding, shameless goalpost-shifting, and the entire unseemly smorgasbord of #PACE-style strategies"
1
21
10/n "In every single case, each of these so-called experts describes #CBT and #GET as “evidence-based” despite the fact that NICE has exposed the purported evidence to be of such low quality as to be meaningless. The “evidence” they refer to is not evidence at all" #MEcfs #CFS
1
23
12/n "This is not just a turning point for people with ME, #CFS, and related conditions — it is a high-profile exposure of exactly how, for years, entire subfields of the psychological sciences have been willing to overlook, if not embrace, shoddy standards." #MyalgicE
1
35