Search results

The lesson the old boys club in medicine around the world has learned from the NICE experience is to make sure that no informed competent independent people, especially patients, will be allowed any significant input or influence on the guidelines. I am not the slightest bit surprised...

There is a very limited pool of people in Australia who could tick those boxes. Almost all will be members of the psycho-behavioural school. The criteria have clearly been constructed to select one of those people.

I regard it as complete nonsense, and a serious red flag about the authors understanding of the real world.

Assuming that published lead-psychopathology associations are causal and not purely correlational: While they get a point for explicitly acknowledging the bleeding obvious, nonetheless that assumption is doing an awful lot of heavy lifting. Enough to sink the conclusions if it does not hold up.

Maybe because patients have had experience with and practice at managing POTS? They are better at reading the somatic signs, and judging how far they can push it before needing to sit/lie down?

We need it to not be funded and published in the first place. It is a complete waste of precious resources and patients' lives

and against a healthcare system unprepared for their needs. And often actively hostile to patients and their needs.

There is no lack on S4ME of calling out low quality bio research.

The most significantly dysregulated up or downregulated genes fell into two main categories, either associated with cell survival or with inflammation. Interesting. :geek:

A real shame that nobody predicted this would happen and tried to warn the rest of society about what was coming... Oh, wait. We did. :grumpy:

The persistent decades-long failure to both discriminate between correlation and causation, and the failure to account for plausible alternative interpretations, is inexcusable. Especially as these fundamental failures have been pointed out since the start, including in the formal peer-review...

Some might even find participating in superficial pointless play-acting to be stressful.

It has previously been reported that reporting a greater number of persistent symptoms after COVID-19 was congruent with more serious illness perceptions People who are sicker tend to report themselves as being sicker. No shit, Einstein. :facepalm:

somatic diseases, functional somatic disorders, mental disorders, and undiagnosed medical conditions How are they discriminating between these, particularly the first three from the last one? Surely a core problem here is the lack of means to reliably do so. So, a blatant self-promotion from...

+1

If that is not extreme bias through self-selection, and automatic disqualification from serious consideration, I don't know what is.

It is the basic technique of con artists and cults. Find a vulnerable mark, convince them you have the answers to their problems (real or imagined), get them to commit to something foolish and renounce their previous beliefs and relationships, and all as publicly and fervently as possible. Whip...

I think it is more than a possibility.

I thought the evidence on meta-analysis (meta-meta-analysis?), such as it exists, was that the outcome seems to depend a lot on the pre-existing views of the meta-analysts. There is such a thing as too much meta.

Our review relied on self-reported measures rather than observations by health professionals or biomarkers. This approach is justified since the symptoms of long covid, such as fatigue, are subjectively experienced, and no objective laboratory measures have been established to predict benefit in...