Search results

In their letter, Peter White et al state: “The PACE trial paper refers to chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS) which is operationally defined; it does not purport to be studying CFS/ME”. The sentence continues by stating that the PACE Trial studied: “CFS defined simply as a principal complaint of...

@Jonathan Edwards I really think its a risky strategy not to point out how bias the Oxford criteria can be because if as to date so called high ranking policy makers haven't grapsed the flaws of unblinded subjective end point trials they may well go along with the original Lancet claim that...

So if you were in the BPS crew and had two doors one for entry to your studies marked "fatigue door" and one for no entry how many people would you include with neuro immune and neurological symptoms via the fatigue door?

Nooooooo!!!!! Oxford is designed to attempt to capture non neurological non immune symptom based patients and maximise potential for tired people in the same way that Crawley attempts to find truant or tired teenagers in her trials yet goes on to claim that her treatments can be applied to...

@Jonathan Edwards Do you think that the Oxford criteria has a better potential to pickup up people who fit multiple criterias or a small subset of people within a syndrome? Surely if it only picks up a smaller subset of people within a syndrome a panel of doctors/interested parties should be...

If you feel better on the 16th day then you had Major Depressive Disorder for one day.

But the use of the Oxford criteria by the BPS crowd in trials is not to be inclusive of all criterias by using Oxford its being used as a deliberate attempt to specifically exclude the rest of us.

Or it may stink because its not legitimate.

The point is that the BPS and PACE crowd do not "cast a wide net" therefore potentially catching multiple groups of a syndrome, they instead deliberately attempt to be specific in recruitment yet apply their "findings" broadly. That's unscientific and deceptive and they do it deliberately...

Earlier you posted on the "phenomenon" as you descried it wherby people would be convinced they had RA when they simply didn't met the criteria, would you selectively include such people in an RA study then report on the findings as an RA study and would this be scientifically valid?

Would you drink London tap water based on a study on UK wide water that only tested water from the Scottish Highlands?

The difference is that the PACE group were commissioned with government money to study a syndrome not a selective group within a syndrome that would help support their own narrative. How can it be scientifically legitimate if it doesn't understand the definition of a syndrome. Its like studying...

Sorry I don't agree with this simply because the results ARE being imposed as a treatment on a separate patient group, namely non Oxford "ME/CFS". Would you agree with the PACE authors claims of non invalidity if they used PACE to go around claiming that their treatments can be applied to MS or...

Even with this how can they possibly help you, you are the one using your body surely its common sense how to manage your own body not a rolled out "treatment". Surely its the patient who should be teaching the "therapist" how its works.

That makes his latest speil even funnier. "Ok then ignore that trial I was involved with if you don't like it I'll just tell you all the facts anecdotally".

"No one ever comes back to this restaurant cos I feed them so well the first time".

It also misses the point that as anecdotal reporting, whilst only using one treatment and no control group, it shows that 3 groups just produced the same possibilities if one was to outline three possibilities before the trial commenced - ie/ people could improve, stay the same or fully...

Crap restaurants wouldn't be assured if they were getting less complaints but their tables were empty.

I'm not sure if he even understands the difference between, "thinking about prognosis in thirds", and splitting prognosis into three groups. He doesn't seem to want to provide any data showing that 33.33333...% achieve x and the two other groups of 33% achieve y and z. He even says this...

Exactly. Its laughable how the medical profession is currently priding themselves on how many people they are unable to diagnose and not only that they keep wanting to put that figure out everywhere. Can you imagine Kwik Fit advertising that 30% of their visitors cars remain unfixed!