Search results

Right, but beyond that...they added up so many various items and it's hard to tell how accurate these accounts are and also whether they really reflect whether or not someone did or did not get the intervention. It all seems pretty arbitrary.

moved posts regarding the cost-effectiveness paper, I'm a bit perplexed about an intervention with null results that is still found to be "cost-effective." How does that work??

I think you're giving them too much credit. I doubt they have even. heard of Physios4ME--I think they exist in a somewhat insular world. What would be the advantage to deliberately having a similar name?

https://virology.ws/2025/04/21/trial-by-error-null-results-for-physiotherapy-in-functional-motor-disorder-trial/

Oh, I see--thanks. Economics uses different methods. Ok, I get that. This seems self-serving to me: "Another important contributor to the different findings is likely to be that the primary outcome of clinical effectiveness was an overly narrow view of the potential benefits of...

This is what I don't get. They're using 0.03 even though it's not a statistically significant finding but I don't see them explaining that decision anywhere, unless I missed it.

of course! I often forget I've written about something until I look for it.

With the LP, at least, wouldn't any fluctuations happen because you stopped doing the LP and saying "STOP!" effectively and properly, and instead began "doing" ME again?

It might be the one I wrote about a few years ago in this post on DNRS. In that case, it was Canada, but McMasters University.

DNRS is the Dynamic Neural Retraining System, created by someone named Annie Hopper. It has the same kinds of components as many of the others, as far as I know--positive affirmations, breathing/relaxation exercises, visualizations, etc. It's good they're including some objective outcomes.

Moved posts They have a new economic analysis of the trial out. They say the intervention is cost-effective. In a tweet the main author (Nielsen) wrote: "It is possible to have a treatment that may not be significantly more clinically effective, but has a high probability of being more cost...

yes, it was conducted to prove that what they were already doing throughout the 90s and what they were already advising the NHS and insurance companies was "evidence-based"

yes, that's quite telling.

yes, that strategy was very effective in making the data disappear.

They need to contact the National Security Advisor to the U.S. president and ask him to add them to the Contacts list so they will be able to get on any calls.

This is an important point to remember, especially about LP. Any acknowledgement of still "doing" the illness or that you still have pains is essentially automatically failing the LP or failing to do it right. So yes, it trains people to respond differently on questionnaires and to reject...

Unfortunately all the studies that have purported to document such benefits are so fraught with issues that they show nothing--such as Professor Crawley's fraudulent pediatric study, which includes such egregious methodological lapses that it should never have seen the light of day and should...

I have called it "research misconduct" on the part of the PACE authors for them to completely "disappear" the FINE findings by not mentioning them in their own papers after years of promoting htem a PACE's "sister study." And yes, failing to provide an accurate account of the background in your...

PACE absolutely was "fraudulent." That's not saying it legally meets definitions of fraud. But it was certainly deliberately deceptive. They presented deliberately manipulated results using outcome measures they weakened after collecting their data. Then they refused to conduct any sensitivity...

I expressed sympathy for their frustration, not for their manner of expressing it. But I've certainly said things I wish I could un-say, that I meant in the heat of the moment but didn't mean in the larger sense or upon reflection and after internal debate with the better parts of my nature.