Search results

I assumed the figure was a joke.

I can't say I've seen such a thing, except Crawley's LP trial and Magenta. Ultimately, it's up to the ethics committee to stop such inappropriate proposals so the real question here is why she was allowed to conduct such studies.

She is an author on the Magenta paper.

Same here. Transitioning from moderate (flu-like malaise PEM) to severe (extreme dysautonomia) was a terrifying experience. It occurred rather suddenly too, which made me think I was dying.

Yep. Lay members of the public have no idea how difficult it is to prove research misconduct or to get journals to take action even when proven. I know of papers that are still up despite clear-cut research fraud like falsified methods or authorship theft which the journals have been informed...

This section highlights how they think. ME/CFS is a diagnosis of exclusion and if some “real” disease is found in your body, you can’t also have ME/CFS. Some of the other diseases they used to exclude people from the study have nothing to do with our symptoms like childhood epilepsy etc.

It’s very surprising to see this trial so transparently reported. Perhaps the huge pushback on SMILE (and the whole debacle of having nearly the whole article corrected post-publication) made them think it wasn’t worth going through the same hassle this time. Magenta results are so bad there’s...

Most making a good or complete recovery? How are they able to get away with these shameless statements?

I'd like to know if they're still using GET (or whatever euphemism they're using these days to circumvent the NICE guidelines) in their clinical service after seeing these results.

Going down this route will also allow them to focus on the stigmatising bit and give a lecture on dualism, ignoring the stronger and most important points about pwME/CFS being unable to complete the hard tasks and therefore the measure is not a measure of preference.

People with very severe psychiatric disorders also have an inability to eat/drink or mobilise so it's very easy to dismiss severe ME/CFS as psychiatric because the test results are all "normal".

It's literally the same CBT formulation they use for anxiety disorders such as agoraphobia with panic attacks. They think nothing is wrong other than the brain learning to associate physical symptoms of anxiety with activity which then leads to avoidance behaviour.

So they stopped recruitment in 2018, had the results in 2019 (1-year follow-up) and have been sitting on them for 5 years, quietly offloading them in an obscure low-impact journal with no press coverage. It's unethical to not publish trial results in a timely fashion. Also, any GET trials still...

Crawley in her 2016 letter makes several audacious statements about lack of any side effects: The letter sounds even more sinister in hindsight now that we have the results. I doubt those 27% of participants who ended up harmed by GET in MAGENTA enjoyed it.

It takes very little to harm people with GET. There have been anecdotal reports of people who went from moderate to severe after just one session.

They're going to have a hard time spinning this as GET and activity management being "equally effective" since neither was effective and the scores didn't budge in either group. It looks like it took them 9 years since trial registration to conduct the trial and report it. My goodness. I wonder...

It's the go-to website for neurologists when confronted with patients whose symptoms they can't explain. Lots of reports on social media of being given a scribbled note with Stone's website written on it and told to go away and never come back.

Reaching out to Treadway is a good idea as long as the letter is laser focused on the misinterpretation of the EEfRT task, not the wider ME/CFS politics of the study. I don't know him but generally most civilians have been very reluctant (to put it mildly) to wade into ME/CFS waters. You could...

Government and insurance industry trying to minimise long-term disability payments by denying that the illness exists. It really is as simple as that.

Nothing to do with the journal. As an author, you can choose whether to make your paper open access or not. Keeping your paper behind a paywall is free while open access publishing is very expensive. I looked up what it costs at JNNP and it's nearly 4000 pounds. NICE obviously haven't chosen to...