Search results

A coward's phrasing. They are involved, or they aren't. Until you have a clear answer, drop the piss weak implications sophistry.

I would be very surprised if we were not being monitored by security agencies. Because, you know, we are really dangerous harassers and threats to noble heroic researchers. [sarcasm alert, just in case the aforementioned agencies have not figured it out]

Somebody should remind Prof Miller that clinician opinion is the lowest formal ranking of evidence in formulating clinical guidelines, and for very good reason.

Nah, they don't. Maybe just because it helped control pain.

When you wish to deceive, first hide the evidence from scrutiny.

You do claim it is primarily driven by psycho-social behavioural factors. It says exactly that in the PACE protocol, and endless other publications from you and your like-minded colleagues. In fact, you claim that is the essence of the disorder. To try to claim otherwise now is dishonest and...

Have read a fair chunk of Fluks stuff in the past, though not recently, and it is fair to say he is a mixed bag.

I have not read the paper but I am guessing that one unstated and/or untested assumption is that the symptom groupings are stable over time.

Or perhaps the IOM, or CDC, or NIH? Just asking.

I agree.

It's a two part question: Did they use a measure, and if they did then which measure? The single subjective self-report question used in PACE is useless. It has to be an objective physical measure, or at least include one.

I thought the average male lifespan is shorter because males die at a higher rate in every decade of life from the start. Partly through being bigger risk takers, presumably to show off to the girls; and partly due to having the XY set of genes, i.e. no backup copies if one set goes wrong...

That is a disgraceful comment. And I say that as somebody who agrees that, on the publicly available evidence so far, their studies are under powered, and their claims are premature. :grumpy:

Waddell and Aylward have a lot of innocent blood on their hands.

I think that banning 'science-based' and 'evidence-based' is a clue about the context in which they are also banning words like 'diversity' and 'fetus'. It does not bode well for medical science in the USA, and just as we in the ME world are finally getting a toe in the door of quality medical...

That isn't science. :facepalm:

Yeah, all that due diligence stuff. Such a drag on imposing one's grand delusions plan upon the rest of the world. Besides, obsessional attention to detail seems a core requirement in a good scientist. Theories and even whole fields of science can live or die on small details. See Lamb Shift...

Amazing what a person will believe, or deny, when their status, reputation, power, and especially income depend on it.

Tax-free and all! This kind of stuff is just fucking disgraceful. :mad:

I don't have the words to describe how much I loathe the parasitic for-profit journal industry and their amazingly blatant and successful scam. Sooner it is killed off, the better.