Search results

Dear Professor of Evidence Based Medicine Could you please cite the evidence that NICE "banned walking"?

I would class that stuff more as management than treatment. But point taken.

So many selective and arbitrary assumptions and interpretations. Just sophistry and misdirection. As usual.

Above all, the goal is for patients to receive a clear diagnosis so they can receive appropriate treatment. What treatment? We barely have any ideas for even the most basic and modest management, let alone any proven active (and safe) treatment.

Yes, the correct interpretation being they are all equally bad and useless, and worse in being potentially misleading.

Not entirely. As primary causal factors, they have no demonstrated role, despite endless and often quite dishonest attempt to portray them as having. But as secondary exacerbating factors, they are definitely a thing. Meaning misdiagnosis, mistreatment, and the poverty and despair, etc, etc...

That would be about the age range humans first start getting serious about kissing each other – i.e. swapping saliva.

Thanks for doing this, @geminiqry. 谢谢

@Chandelier Could you please add some paragraph breaks to that wall of text. It would be a big help in reading it.

Conclusion Inspiratory muscle training improved cardiorespiratory outcomes, while multicomponent physical training improved muscle strength, physical functioning, and fatigue. Both types of training improve physical functioning. The certainty of evidence for the outcomes evaluated was low. So...

And in a very nasty cruel dishonest and cowardly way. Above all else this stuff is just utter cowardice in the face of appalling truths, especially about themselves. Which, incidentally, is ultimately why I have no respect for them whatsoever and am so hard on them. They deserve it. Moral...

The ME/CFS service team consists of a wide range of skilled staff, including consultant clinical psychologists, assistant psychologists, specialist occupational therapists, and rehabilitation staff. Which is the problem.

Sadly all true. Highly refined production line GIGO barely begins to cover it.

Transferring responsibility onto the patient for the profession's failure. Which pretty much sums up the entire psycho-behavioural project thus far, with no sign of it becoming anything else anytime soon.

Yep. That they can get away with such a brazen admission just proves how corrupted the quality control system is in this area of medicine has become. How is this not straight scientific and moral fraud? Where's the fucking outrage from the rest of medicine and society? :mad::mad::mad:

If this finding holds up then it would seem to provide good evidence that LC is biologically based.

Do we know this, and how?

They may have done so but had it changed by reviewers/editors.

In patients with functional motor disorder, no association was found between prepulse inhibition size and objectively rated motor symptom severity. lack of correlation = lack of causation = hypothesis falsified

Current questionnaires don’t capture its severity or impact. Nor its character/nature.