Search results

On the site @mlapenna makes the point that it may be useful for researchers when planning studies to have a profile of the potential pool of subjects they may be able to draw on. No matter how well designed research is, it is of no use if it can not recruit sufficient subjects. I would agree...

@mlapenna, again I want to stress that I think this is a very valuable undertaking, but I have been looking through the CFS/ME registry site and just had a couple of points: - I have learned not to be confident of my judgement on quick decisions, as I am quite capable of making silly errors by...

This sounds like a very valuable exercise and one I want to support (I plan to look at registering with the CFS/ME registry), but @NelliePledge raises an interesting point about whether including a study would be seen as an endorsement. Especially as we have witnessed over recent years here in...

There are some very pertinent comments on Demonitor's Facebook post which is very heartening. Virtually all the comments so far (at least those that I think I have understood) were very critical of Sharpe. (Apart from one commentor who kept getting annoyed that people were talking about ME. He...

Good to know the SMC are committed to fighting fake news. Let's hope they include their own back catalogue in their quest to root it out.

A shame there does not seem to be comments facility for the original Durch article. Here, badly worded, are some of the points I would want to raise with the journalist and Prof Sharpe (also posted as a comment to Anil's blog post): So sad that Sharpe is allowed continue to make these...

It is even more dangerous given, even if they were correct about ME being a functional condition, which they are not, advocates for including ME under the MUS umbrella and refusing biomedical assesment are ignoring the fact that ME is associated with higher incidences of other conditions such as...

Presumably they mean 'clinical judgement', but I suspect that even very experience GPs would have very poor diagnostic success if they had to rely only on talking and looking to make complex differential diagnosis. It is a very dangerous situation to invent a psychiatric diagnosis of 'medically...

The worrying thing is the advice not to actually assess or medically treat people with an MUS diagnosis, means that currently identifiable and treatable diagnosises will be missed. It seems they are building a way of hanging onto patients that are biomedically identifiable as being in the wrong...

Will this madness only be stopped when there have been numbers of deaths from treatable conditions undiagnosed because of the meaningless and harmful fictitious diagnosis of 'MUS syndrome'? When will such as Prof Chalder admit they have invented a pyschiatric syndrome with no evidence base...

I think a lot of my relatives, friends and neighbours missed the memo on the 'societal belief'. Where is the evidence that exercise is good for everyone with pain or fatigue? Millennia of evolution have developed the pain system and a sense of being tired/fatigued/exhausted for good reasons. To...

Reading through the article a second time it seems the basis of the arguement parallels that of Freud's rejection of neuropsychological modelling in favour of what became psychoanalysis. Freud's critique of the little box approach to neurological models of behaviour, outlined in such as "On...

Is considering everyone as individuals in this context an excuse for not addressing the very dangerous untested theoretical underpinning of MUS? Without explicitly stating it the proponents are effectively creating an MUS syndrome that consists of a group of people believed not to have any...

Hope I am not being naive, but this reads as a very positive step forward by Action for ME.

I have waffled on about this before, but wonder if we have lost out with the dropping of the concept of convalesance. Looking back twenty five years ago to the onset on my own ME following glandular fever, it was characterised by returning to work too soon, being off work for a couple of weeks...

Is this a downright falsehood? I have read many though not all the the GET/CBT studies, but my understanding is that they all use the same flawed methodology of subjective outcomes in unblinded trials. If any objective measures were used, they are either quietly dropped from the reporting or...

Please add my name: Peter Trewhitt [added later: just saw the cut off time, so sorry if I was too late to be included. Thank you @JohnTheJack For taking the trouble of trying to herd cats and pulling this letter together.]

Typo, should read 'how not to conduct a research trial' or 'how not to conduct research'.

@Trish, I do not subscribe to the Times on line so do not have access to the relevant thread, but if you could point me in the right direction I would be happy to send it, as asking Proff Watt and the MRC what they intend to do when they are forced to admit their support for PACE is profoundly...

Given the egregious and well document faults in the PACE study, which when subject to objective analysis produced null results, and given the similar failings of subsequent related studies, given the rejection of the study by the international scientific community and by the British Parliament...