Search results

The director of NCKV is Prof. dr. Hans Knoop who outsources it to mental health or medical psychology at the UMC led by: Prof. dr. Hans Knoop aka himself…

In Prins 2001, Table 1: Baseline characteristics of study participants, it is 3.9 so very similar

In regards to that Q-fever study, When we analysed them, we found this: Our reanalysis found that the Qure study suffered from many serious methodological problems, which included relying on one subjective primary outcome in a study without a control group for the non-blinded CBT treatment...

“we could argue over 95% with PEM versus 80% with PEM” It’s like saying, we could argue over 95% with a broken leg versus 80% with a broken leg in a study about people with a broken leg. Those people who don’t have that should have been excluded from the study. If that wasn’t done, then the...

Just as interesting is that Stevelink et al., which included Professor Trudie Chalder, concluded that “work-related outcomes should be targeted” in treatment for ME/CFS but for whatever reason they forgot to mention the null effect on work related outcomes in her own pace trial. Anybody knows...

Thank you, that trial is a typical example of labelling ineffective treatment as effective and ignoring your own results. Or to put a differently, it is a typical example of opinion based medicine.

@Trish and @Andy, The sentence has now been changed by the journal into: “To date, some data indicate that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may not be efficacious as a stand-alone treatment for long COVID-19 fatigue (Vink & Vink-Neise, 2020).”

That is very true I don’t think there’s any chance of convincing the CBT fundamentalists, however the hope is that proper scientists are not happy about research where they they label the severely ill as recovered, make endless endpoint changes to get the desired results et cetera

The problem is that you would need 15 letters or more and they would never publish that many in response to one article, especially if you know that the editor of that journal is a PACE trial supporter who states he is against bad science yet continues to ignore all the problems of that study

That’s one possibility another possibility is publishing a review of their arguments elsewhere which is what we’ve done (published last week) and there is a thread about it on this forum here...

Also according to their guideline for authors, ”Letters for publication in the print journal must reach us within 2 weeks of publication of the original item and should be no longer than 250 words.” With so many things in that article which are incorrect, it’s impossible to address that all in...

We’ve contacted the journal and submitted a response, so let’s see what happens…

Yes, that's very sad don’t you think?

it’s always interesting when people refer to our article but then come up with something we didn’t say. We wrote the following for example about long Covid and CBT: “Our reanalysis found that the Qure study [of CBT for Q-fever fatigue syndrome] suffered from many serious methodological...

exactly but they’re also claiming in an indirect way that patients are not motivated to get better because they don’t want to use a treatment that will help them instead of acknowledging that their treatment is useless

Thread to our analysis of this study: https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-updated-nice-guidance-exposed-the-serious-flaws-in-cbt-and-graded-exercise-therapy-trials-for-me-cfs-2022-vink-and-vink-niese.27590/

Yes, that’s correct

Thank you for that there is something really wrong with that guy just have a look at the following from your link: He is trying to say that my is not a physical disease despite all the abnormalities because: "On the other hand, there is also a long list of conditions that were once believed to...

how about the science media centre