Search results

Garner's a big fan of this paper

Garner is now retweeting Science Denier in Chief Toby Young claiming POTS is basically social contagion/hysteria and attention seeking.

Damn. I wish I understood what these words meant, especially the bronze casting jewelry making part — which seemed to come out of nowhere.

Abstract Aim Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) is a disorder with cardiovascular autonomic dysfunction where multiple and variable symptoms are common, including those from the peripheral and enteric nervous systems. We aimed to investigate subjective and objective signs of small...

What does that mean in this context? I'm mostly getting the typical academic jargon of university humanities and social sciences departments.

The MEA seem quite happy functioning like a large support group rather than a change-making national charity.

I was thinking this myself. I know with the PSP and DecodeME there are now established PPI members who I'm sure will want to continue working with Chris and co, but S4ME (members) should be involved where possible.

Rebecca Tolin is one of the more prominent YouTube recovery / brain retraining people.

Well, a bit of good news for once. Probably worthy of its own thread. (Done)

Are these tests actually legit? I never know whether they're just pure pseudoscience or not.

Yes, they've taken the ICC PENE critera (5 items) and just completely butchered them so that they become about 'tiredness'. Just bizzare. Why take the most strict/restrictive diagnostic criteria and then water them down? :confused:

Yes, I suppose you could look at it that way. I could have just written the first paragraph about the anomalously high prevalence rate in controls and then stopped! That probably would have been better!

I think this is clickbait. It's a grandiose statement going against conventional wisdom (that long covid is associated with ME/CFS) despite being based on an extremely low powered observational study.

I assumed the scoring system was their own invention. It's certainly nothing to do with the ICC. Now wondering if it's based on De Paul. If it is, they've not mentioned or even referened it at all.

I have left a comment. I don't have the energy to spend a long time on this, but I think I covered some of the main criticisms here. -- The authors report an ME/CFS prevalence rate of 10.8% in their control group. This is 10–20 times larger than the best estimates of the prevalence rate from...

It really seems to be a big problem now, made much worse by poor long covid research.

Will be interesting to see if this gets published. I have no doubt given scientific publishing and peer review standards that they'll find a home for it.

I don't even know where you'd start with this crap. Probably a lost cause.

It's not significant if your error bars are longer than a giraffe's neck.

This must be the most bizzare abstract I've read for many, many years.