Quite disheartening to return from 10 days working with some of the most important and relevant #MECFS and #LongCOVID researchers in the world and to read this drivel being allowed through from @bmj_latest. Let's be unambiguous about this: BMJ has 1/
bmj.com/content/389/bm…
bmj.com/content/389/bm…
allowed an OPINION piece to be published about #MECFS that flies in the face of:
1. current consensus science
2. recent NICE guidelines that were corrected so as to not include recommendations based on fraudulent/discredited data (PACE Trial)
3. voices of ME/CFS patients
2/
1. current consensus science
2. recent NICE guidelines that were corrected so as to not include recommendations based on fraudulent/discredited data (PACE Trial)
3. voices of ME/CFS patients
2/
Not only should this be a point of shame for @bmj_latest and their editorial team, but we really should be asking about the legal ramifications of continuing to invite researchers to push an agenda that is no longer supported by consensus science and has NEVER been supported 3/
by the patient community. For the longest time, patients have told us that CBT and GET cause harm. We finally have hard physiologic data to support this and yet idealogues are allowed to freely publish OPINION about #MECFS and other energy-limiting diseases in @bmj_latest. To 4/
be clear, claims that CBT and GET can cure or treat severe #LongCOVID and #MECFS is no less absurd and dangerous than telling cancer patients to quit chemo and cure themselves with celery juice or telling day 1 abdominal surgery patients to boost recovery with a game of rugby. 5/
The opinions in this piece about #MECFS have already aged badly. Now they're downright wrong and dangerous. The commitment of @bmj_latest to continue publishing opinion in the face of needs to be met with outrage by the scientific community. Our patients need protection. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
