Search results

"Blinding removes the possibility of a placebo effect creating an artefactual response in the treatment group." I really don't think he knows what he is talking about here. This doesn't make sense. Blinding doesn't remove placebo effects per se, and how would a placebo effect be creating a...

I don't think they even had to cherry pick. If you design a study badly enough, the cherries will pick themselves!

I've always worried about CFS criteria being a wee bit of a red herring, tbh. It gives them a get-out clause ("oh we weren't studying ME anyway..."), which I don't think is true, particularly given the reports from those in the trial. Yes, the study population is massively heterogeneous, but...

Well, RH is.

No, I don't think it is. It is symptom-denying; then the inevitable crash. If there is any pacing involved, it is despite the therapy, not because of it.

MS: "But a regulated trial makes it very hard to bias the results." That simply isn't true. But it is quite baffling that no-one on the steering committee spotted that they were overseeing an unblinded uncontrolled study with subjective composite endpoints. Bias galore! Oh, but psych studies...

I'm not sure there's much point trying to second guess what he is saying. Much of it is post hoc. And besides, reducing one of the criteria (PF) to well below the criteria set for improvement (>75 or >70) doesn't make any sense at all, even if combined with other measures. Also, the KCL website...

The group also suggest reporting poor care to the CQC: http://www.cqc.org.uk/share-your-experience-finder

It's all a game to him. I'm not going to respond.

He has previous used the word "incurious" to mean "showing absence of intellectual inquisitiveness or natural curiosity" i.e., as an insult. He doth not like forensic enquiry. I wonder why?

Now he's just being rude. :mad:

My OH wanted to ask him: "What's Peru's third largest export to the UK?" :rofl:

Well he's answered @dave30th ... I think some of those in the SMC group would disagree about whether they did actually receive more medical treatment than they usually did (in the UK).

He's just trolling now. :(

It's here. It was just a tweet from MS to CM: I subsequently quoted it and commented that he left out the words "perpetuating the" disability. Elsewhere he said he'd written about CFS not being a "psychological" condition. I'm going to have a look for that... In fact, I'm going to ask him. It...

No, me neither...

He has, but he deleted his tweet about it (thread here)...

Probably... But I just. can't. stop!

They've already answered that with their mediation analysis. It's because it agrees with their theory that CFS is a "subjective" condition.

The recovery question has already been asked many, many times. I don't think he's ever answered it though. I think they realise it was a mistake, and are hoping that if they ignore it, it will just go away.