Just another marketing effort to try hanging onto their unearned authority, and avoid accountability.
:speechless:
"medical royalty" When self-promotion and bootstrapping substitute for robust medical science. :rolleyes:
I like this Twitter tag: #OpinionBasedMedicine
"However, the diagnostic criteria for somatization disorder defined in the DSM-IV have frequently been criticized as overly restrictive....
If the aetiology is unclear, then how can it be classified as functional?
symptoms and signs that show variability within the same task and between different tasks over time. So therefore psychosomatic? Because no...
Done. :thumbsup:
This.
Having to concentrate so hard on the marketing suggests strongly that your product is either a lemon, or just irrelevant to your 'customers' needs.
I guess titling it 'How to lie more effectively to patients' might have caused some problems with the ethics scrutiny.
They are using some objective outcome measures, including the primary outcome, which is good. But some concerns about the risk to those patients...
Made my first donation today. Another one next pay. :thumbsup:
Why deny patients with chronic fatigue syndrome treatments that can help? Now that is some dishonest framing. Yep. It is dirty gutless behaviour.
As long as my chakras get realigned to the cosmic oneness, I'm good with it. :rolleyes:
I argued for SEID when the IOM report came out. But for some reason it just didn't catch on.
Indeed.
Just THC? Or does it contain CBD too? If it does, then what ratios are you using?
That assumes that any infection was known about. If they were asymptomatic, or no lab tests were run, or it is a hit-and-run agent, or a novel...
Bizarre, isn't it. Patients are demanding more robust methodology, and (some) clinicians are demanding weaker methodology.
Separate names with a comma.
