Search results

I seem to remember that it's normally much quicker to the first 50% than it is getting to 100%. Hoping it all goes well!

If they couldn't spot the problems with that piece for themself, that's a sign that they really shouldn't be getting paid for anything to do with CFS.

No, you didn't at all. I think @Sly Saint was being a bit jokey. There is some irritation around about some of the history there, and people being cut off from their past work. We try not to discuss that here out of fear of snark taking over the forum, and that might lead to some confusing...

Particularly the ones who find problems with papers!

Sharpe/Chalder/Goldsmith made no real arguments in their paper (other than the point they got wrong about APT being excluded from the analyses) so this feels more like a flogging than a debate. It's pretty depressing how little this seems to matter. Things have to be pretty rotten to have...

Yes! I'm on the super list! I'm afraid I'm feeling really dim at the moment though @Michiel Tack and I'm struggling just to follow PACE developments. I think that this is something where it would be really valuable for people to be submitting things - we know that people working against us will...

So many weak pieces coming out. This promotion of the Lightning Process by some confused members of the 'pro-science' crowd, while they fail to engage with any of the specific concerns raised, seems very odd.

All credit to @fivetowns for looking back at the paper. It's only a little thing compared to all the other problems with the article... but it is a bit annoying that the only figures from a research paper presented are written up in a slip-shod manner. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_(newspaper)

I think her reporting can be criticised when she says "around a third of adults affected by the illness who attended these specialist clinics reported substantial improvement". She didn't say "around a third of those adults who attended these clinics and then went on to complete follow-up...

There's a lot of nothing in that article. Impossible to remember it all! There was discussion of the paper cited here: https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/specialist-treatment-of-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-me-a-cohort-study-among-adult-patients-in-england.52845/#post-875674

I think that the section @fivetowns quoted was always in there (with the slight edit made for the more UK-centric the I), which was not related to the 'correction' removing information about where Tuller's work was released.

That was in there: http://archive.fo/V9WTA#selection-713.0-713.372

Thanks - marking this to listen to later. I'm just not finding time to keep up with all I want right now! Thanks to everyone.

Oh sure - I didn't think otherwise. I guess I feel like now might not be the best time for you to be playing bad cop. I can be unusually cautious, but I feel like your work, and your role drawing attention to problems surrounding PACE, are important enough that it's particularly worth avoiding...

I'm probably missing behind the scenes info, but reading the blog without that I was left wondering if, politically, it would have been better to reach out to those at the CDC about concerns with the way Kelland has represented the changed recommendations before writing a blog describing their...

That this piece is so weak on substance, and yet so confidently one-sided... could this be a sign that Kelland has been told Cochrane is going to help cover-up problems with PACE, Larun's review, etc? The comments from Tovey in the piece don't really indicate that, but surely she must think that...

Originally the piece claimed that: This was not true - Tuller piece was hosted by Professor Racaniello of Columbia University. This was then changed to: They didn't want any info in there that might not imply something negative about Tuller! Their note says: "(This March 13 story edits 31st...

I thought I'd go back through this and make a few notes on this article. That Larun stuff towards the end is particularly insufferable. Just to be clear, Cochrane's own report found every part of Courtney's complaint about Larun's review to be valid...

I feel like there's just been so much to read recently that a lot of us are struggling to keep up, and having important things pass us by. Thanks to everyone trying to put together careful responses to things like this.

I don't know - there's a claim that "The scientific evidence supporting the benefit of these supplements is strong" but I didn't see references to good quality research there. I don't know about how MS should be treated, but I do know how easy it is to create a misleading narrative in a...