That’s kind of why you do phase I and II. Surely, it would be exceedingly rare to encounter such interactions as late as phase III or IV. Besides,...
New info could be added without changing the primary outcome. Same with biomarkers. Negative side effects should already be covered inderectly by...
Wouldn’t it be better to complete the study as intended and then add more info if you encounter something unexpected? ‘X didn’t happen, but we...
@EndME can you give some examples of when it’s justified to deviate from the study protocol? And contrast that with when it isn’t?
I just want to add that the lack of ‘intent’ is irrelevant. The closest analogy would be the law - ignorance won’t save you if you go above the...
Wouldn’t ‘manipulation of the research method’ be classified as fraud? You’ve changed data. It doesn’t matter if it’s the measurement data or the...
Is science fraud one of those self-governing terms? Is there anything we could do to make it have real consequences for the researchers?
Would it be worthwhile to dig into their funding and maybe go above their heads? I don’t have the energy to do anything about it myself, though.
@Jonathan Edwards does this fit with the ‘internal cell memory’ that was discussed earlier (this week?)? Could it be that there’s a gene-related...
This is bad, but not unexpected. When does it become fraud?
Fair point! I’m not fully up to speed on the DSQ, so I can’t comment on that part. what’s true PEM?
That paper says this: Their reference is Appelman, Wüst & Co, which clearly states that PEM is the worsening of symptoms, not fatigue. It seems...
Thank you for asking, and good on him for responding. I hope he meant ‘learn about’ or ‘study’ PEM in the last paragraph, as we have no known...
Only pre-LC-vaccine it is. Thank you, @Nightsong
https://archive.is/2025.02.04-121405/https://www.statnews.com/2025/02/04/recover-initiative-nih-long-covid-me-cfs-post-viral-illness/
In isolation, I read it as post-LC-vaccine improves LC. But as you say, the title says pre-LC-vaccine. So I’m confused!
This sounds more like lung damage than ME/CFS-like LC? What kind of patients did they sample?
Why does everyone have to include lies like this? I get that they want to highlight the relevance of their work, but you can do that on the basis...
He wants to rebrand ME/CFS as a Post Active Phase of Infection Syndrome (PAPIS). That would be a bit like rebranding lung cancer as a Post...
I don’t have access to the paper. Does this mean that they found that vaccination after getting LC improved certain LC symptoms?
Separate names with a comma.
