Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I've heard bad things, but that was a while back. I think it is supervised by White, and that has to be a bad sign.
There was a paper on self-reported outcomes which found pretty poor results for NHS services generally (although written by those with a vested interest in them, so the paper is pretty positive): http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/6/555
Also, those centres providing GET over activity management did worse overall - while White's centre at Barts provides GET and claims to have had the best results. Presumably this means that the other centres providing GET had truly terrible results - but it's hard to say for sure as a lot of information has not been released (unless it can be used to promote services!).
The Sussex and Kent ME/CFS society is run by someone who really doesn't seem very bright, and is consistently supportive of authority. They could be one of the reasons why the service has a bad reputation.
There was a paper on self-reported outcomes which found pretty poor results for NHS services generally (although written by those with a vested interest in them, so the paper is pretty positive): http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/6/555
Also, those centres providing GET over activity management did worse overall - while White's centre at Barts provides GET and claims to have had the best results. Presumably this means that the other centres providing GET had truly terrible results - but it's hard to say for sure as a lot of information has not been released (unless it can be used to promote services!).
The Sussex and Kent ME/CFS society is run by someone who really doesn't seem very bright, and is consistently supportive of authority. They could be one of the reasons why the service has a bad reputation.
Last edited:
