Search results

I could live with all the other symptoms, if cognition was not affected. They are horrible and limiting, but the cognitive stuff is the most distressing and limiting feature for me.

Kinda like PACE's (initial public) justification for ditching actometers being that they were too much of a burden to patients? To be honest, I don't give a fig whether the kids liked it or not. The important questions are 1) is it an unduly intrusive or onerous measure, and 2) is it an...

They just get slicker at selling it and hiding the consequences. That is what they really learn from this, instead of what they should learn, which is how to avoid making the same mistakes again. Indeed, the fact that they keep making these 'mistakes' after brutally clear lessons from...

I put money on this one.

Once again, adding a single word makes all the difference: Functional symptoms are complaints that are not primarily explained based on known physical or physiological abnormalities. I do not believe they are leaving that word out by accident or ignorance. They know it makes all the...

Yeah, their shitty smear job trying to shut Tuller down hasn't worked out too well, has it. Might have even helped the donation drive. Oops. :D Perhaps they could make their show an annual event. :whistle:

Wessely is a master at leading people to an idea, and flattering them that they reached it independently.

Gotta love Vogt's accusation of "overselling" this finding. Projection much? It is a truly bizarre demand from the critics, and might indicate how desperate they are getting.

In. A. Heartbeat.

Didn't the HRA report explicitly say it was not commenting on technical aspects (i.e. methodology), only on required ethical and legal compliance?

Not to mention that I don't recall Sir Simon ever correcting or commenting similarly on the decades of headlines that misrepresented his work and claims in ways favourable to him. In fact, I am fairly sure there would be a quote from him somewhere to the effect that he is not responsible for...

Says the man who has long stated that we don't need to know the cause of a condition to have an effective treatment (which is true). Well, we don't need to know the cause of a condition to have an accurate biomarker, is at least as true. And none of your many studies have provided any proof...

Two words: Methodological rigour. See above response.

I agree that we need to be cautious and conservative at this point about any biophysical finding, and wait until the rigorous science is fully done on it. We can't afford to get hyped up about work that has not yet reached the highest level of rigour. This is a long-term game.

:inlove::inlove::inlove:

Not sure the firmware comparison is much better. Firmware is still software instructions to hardware, it is just much more specific software for a particular piece of hardware. A different level of software, but still software. Good point.

The idea that needs to die is that passing peer-review means a study is 'true'. Passing peer-review just admits the study to the highest level of the debate.

:D

Woah there, sparky. I'm gonna have to see some evidence for that bold claim. ;)

There is literally no physical, psychological, social, or economic metric on which patients do better by being sick. So the central claim of the secondary gains argument is completely false. It couldn't be more obvious and unambiguous. Yet the claim survives and prospers, free of any...