Search results

This is the 'fatigue psychologist' who wrote a critical response to the George Monbiot Guardian peice last October, then seemed to backtrack: https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/oct/22/a-dualistic-view-of-illness-doesnt-help-those-with-me-cfs Edit: I've just seen that today he has a second...

Many of these people — including Liz Carlson, Lindsay Vine, Rebecca Kennedy — are RecoveryGrift™ YouTubers and social media folk, recycling the same patient stories that often sound like some form of burnout, and selling their own or each other's courses. I'm suprised Raelan Agle hasn't included...

after?

Ok so probably his friends in Norway. I would do some sleuthing but it's been a while since I did any Wikipedia stuff. Can you see the other edits from this user?

Would this still apply given he's primarily a researcher/academic and doesn't practise medicine?

He's clearly been editing his Wikipedia page. This should be challenged if anyone is active on Wikipedia?

The person/people behind Long Covid Advocacy write quite well on BPS nonsense. There's sometimes a little too much "academic-speak" for my liking, but overall pretty good: https://www.longcovidadvoc.com/my-blog

I noticed yesterday that Dominic Cummings had a Lindus Health t-shirt on during a recent interview. I thought I recognised the name from somewhere.

I feel exactly the same. I have written about it here, I think. It's like my body cannot properly heal any injuries to soft tissue. I have issues that started 10–15 years ago that will not resolve. And, yes, any repetitive use makes things much worse. I have a problem with the soft tissue around...

eh?

They are saying the second group — who had a smaller change in CO during tilt (red in their Fig 2) — is indicative of a hyperadrenergic response, whereas in the other group (blue in their Fig 2) there is an almost 1:1 relationship between the change in cerebral blood flow and cardiac output...

Just to clarify: is this a general statement about results forthcoming, or have you seen specific results?

Yes I saw that your comment was submitted several days ago and thought that they may have screened it. But they don't seem to screen everything, nor do they seem to make appropriate edits, such as to obvious typos.

That's how I feel after spending time on a response. It's clear that the BMJ does not screen these responses, even minimally, despite having a letters editor. I get that none of this is peer-reviewed, but it does undermine the whole rapid response thing if non-genuine (whether produced by a bot...

I wouldn't waste time on content created by AI. The content adds nothing to the conversation because it's all generic stuff with a few things about telemedicine.

These are 100% AI responses. I stand by my claim that these are not real people.

Good rr from a now medically retired former NHS consultant in rehabilitation: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-12

Another good rr. This time from @Joan Crawford: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-11

After our detour into AI-bots and paper mills, there is a new rapid response from MEAction UK: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-5

Good luck!