Search results

I applaud these researchers for subjecting one of these often discussed but rarely studied brain retraining programmes to empirical scrutiny. It's difficult to interpret the BDNF result due to the large baseline difference between trial arms in the % of patients on antidepressants (10% vs 36%)...

Pretty funny coming from a Lancet subspecialty journal. And what if you write to a government funded principal investigator of a trial and ask for summary data, not even raw data, and he tells you it no longer exists even though the paper was published 2 years ago? What recourse is there against...

A huge red flag.

I’ll try. The threads in question aren’t popping up on a Google search.

These sorts of papers are designed to give doctors even more justification to dismiss things as anxiety and hysteria. Once you have these lies on your chart, it's pretty much the kiss of death. A friend of mine had unexplained abdominal pain for years which was diagnosed as psychosomatic. A few...

Looks like the private lab peddling tests for these autoantibodies in ME/CFS and POTS is now looking to branch out into the new field of Long Covid. We discussed the huge overlap between normal controls and patients on these antibodies years ago on the other forum. There is nothing there. An...

I am skeptical of these claims. I have not kept up with this literature recently but a number of years ago a neurologist who diagnosed me with POTS referred me to an exercise programme that was specifically designed for POTS. Being the vexatious zealot that I am, I went and read the primary...

That horrifying moment when the ER wheels out a liaison psychiatrist to deliver the news that there is, in fact, nothing wrong with you.

Sounds like a very active retirement!

Being retired or leaving an institution doesn’t absolve you of your duties as principal investigator. Since publications are still coming out such as the long term follow up paper clearly one or more of the investigators is still managing the database. This is yet another lie they’re spinning to...

Very satisfying read, the opponent got blown out. Unfortunately Rowe is guilty of the exact same blind spots as Sharpe when it comes to his own aetiological claims (circulatory/orthostatic).

Because if you went and reanalysed Lancet publications in accordance with their respective statistical analysis plans, there’d be hardly anything left on the Lancet website after all the retractions.

Psychotherapy is more than just harmless buffoonery. It is harmful for people with actual brain diseases like mood disorders (not talking about the worried well who just need someone supportive to chat with) and should be regulated. Imagine having a biological problem in the brain and someone is...

Somebody should issue an executive order banning these annoying smartass trial acronyms. On the other hand, they are kind of a useful heuristic in filtering out stupid research without having to even read the abstract.

Words fail me.

Unfortunately that’s all research is these days with rare exceptions. Almost every paper I read on pubmed makes me disgusted and demoralised.

Right, and even BPS researchers now argue against their early claims by claiming that (alleged) treatment effect of CBT/GET is not mediated by increased fitness which is how they are able to dismiss no improvement on fitness measures. GET is just graded exposure therapy.

No.

Is this the same methodology as the Japanese PET study?

That was my default assumption too but thanks for the informed opinion, reassuring to know. I wasn’t going to touch AZ anyway. In my country, AZ is only a minority of the vaccine inventory so getting something else shouldn’t be an insurmountable obstacle. Sorry to hear you were treated like...