Search results

Well coughing then! Point is the same. Agree a cloth mask is not going to guarantee any certain safety, only that wearing it might be slightly better than wearing nothing in altering your odds. It would be interesting to have real statistics on this point. Guess the consensus is that...

Perhaps, but maybe also you might have breathed those virus particles in directly if you were wearing no mask? A mask might be a delaying factor? So, it might be helpful if some-one sneezed in your area? You would then walk away, remove the potentially contaminated mask, wash your hands...

How much use, in preventing viral particles being inhaled, would simple masks, sewn up at home, be? I’m thinking an inner sewn from an old towel (more absorbent than a new one) with a cotton outer (would be finer gauge than the towel) and tapes to secure it? (Perhaps a paper clip sewn carefully...

THIS x 100!

In an evolutionary sense, it can make sense to favour behaviours that ensure an individual rests when sickness is present. The “sickness behaviour” in response to the state of ill-health should ensure the best chance of recovery, and hence the survival of the individual. The converse is not...

Really “sickness behaviour” as a term is so inadequate. It seems to cover two entirely different concepts: 1. A behaviour that is a response to being sick. 2. A behaviour that is adopted by people who ”believe” they are sick! The name ”sickness behaviour” seems to suggest the second meaning...

LOL.. Mind you seems it wasn’t a typo at all. See my post above, where the image clearly shows a cross over in the group that started with placebo. I wonder why.

So from the image in the first tweet, it seems there was a cross-over between placebo and active, but not the other way around.... so the word “Active” in blue must be intentional, and not a typo.

You mean the blue word “Active” should actually read “Placebo”? If so, then why annotate each line twice? And why have the change in background colour just after intervention 8? It is confusing I think.

Just realised the x axis has a different scale on each of the graphs. Top graph gives Days, and lower one Number of treatments. So presumably the treatments were not daily? Meaning the lower graph is taking place over more than 2 weeks. Sorry that was my bad, as I talked about that graph as if...

Or alternatively that word “Active” written in blue, should really read “Placebo”??? Typo?

Okay.. thinking some more. Perhaps 1st treatment week (edit treatment block, not week) is less, and 2nd week is where real benefit happens? So effect C actually looks like A minus Placebo effect.... So perhaps it is the second week where the real difference occurs? I’m still to be...

Okay, so I’m probably not reading this right... but the results don’t seem to show a placebo only arm. And in the graph that was put up on twitter, the treatment does not seem to me to have a clearly different effect size to the placebo. (See my crude arrows on the 2nd graph). Yes over...

Thanks for the shout-out Nellie :) The blog is currently hibernated for a while, but a few of the Pacing posts I wrote are linked from this page: http://sallyjustme.blogspot.com/2014/08/index.html

I started reading the AfME document, but found it heavy going and decided I had more important things to read today. Regarding @Peter Trewhitt’s comment on the advice he was given on activity switching... I think that advice is unhelpful. When I was at my most ill, I found that the act of...

Well I had a bug over Christmas. My resting HR was 10 bpm above my normal for some time. Actually it’s start to return to normal preceded my feeling a bit better which was interesting.

I think it’s worth sticking with. A cure? No. Of course not! But worth the effort? Yes, for me anyway.

Seems not.

In full recognition that I am an n=1 sample in a self-reported, unblinded, uncontrolled study, I’d say it’s worth a closer look. Since cutting my carbs to a Low Carb level (I’m not always full on keto), I’d say my stamina, sleep, and mental clarity have all improved. Not in anyway a cure, just...

But the comparisons between MECFS & controls (eg two before samples) would not be paired. So surely there should be annotations to explain which were paired tests and which not??