Search results

They've also easily gotten away with it for decades, putting about as much effort into as farting in a general direction. That breeds laziness and complacency. It's one reason why they are so awful at arguing their case: they never had to. They could always simply voice their opinions out loud...

I do notice a lot of misunderstanding in the coverage about what a GWAS is, framing it somewhat as this meaning a genetic cause for the illness, rather than the actual purpose of a GWAS, which is to narrow down the possible mechanisms. Unless I myself misunderstood what a GWAS is or what the...

And as we saw in many studies, including a recent paper about MS, this is a common problem, where the prodrome phase is not taken as such, but instead misdiagnosed as mental illness, creating the illusion that it is a risk factor. All of this should be obvious when you consider how common it is...

This is really something that should be strongly emphasized in response: this is an entirely medicine-created problem, where most physicians refuse to diagnose ME/CFS, and most health care systems strongly discourage it. Even though it's mostly misleading because there were additional checks...

What does "brain regions" mean here? Meaning specific parts of the brain? Or does that cover the entire nervous system?

There's a common trope about how every disaster movie begins with people ignoring scientists. It's lacking the other side of the coin: it's usually other scientists who ignore them, have different opinions or interpretations, sometimes even competing interests or biases.

I think there is a way to make it impactful in the right way, in that this is still what medicine believes, and it's shameful and has to change. Because until they abandon those beliefs, nothing can change. But only in its proper context: why has nothing been done about it, why has this illness...

With another scientist quoted as saying the opposite. It's always good for trust in the credibility of science to see such contradictions side-by-side in an information sheet produced by an organization that claims to communicate about science.

Huge german influencer ranting about ME and getting millions of views in just 1 day It's a TikTok video (physicians hate this one trick) that apparently got 1M+ views and lots of comments, including from other influencers. Someone auto-translated the video:

A very odd use of subjective, as loss of income and added costs are some of the most objective measures out there. I guess by that they must want to mean that the attribution is subjective, but won't say it loud because 1) they don't have to, and 2) it has no evidence. What does that have to do...

It's basically what they reported here, but disguised it and made a paper out of an irrelevant side show. The diary thing is a distraction. Having more frequent data is what's useful, especially given how little data traditional trials actually produce, taking the form of a diary is an entirely...

I fear they won't, with basic imaging being so restricted, because of cost and availability, more advanced machines would be even more restricted, and so even if they were useful in research, clinically they would be irrelevant for this problem since they wouldn't be 'wasted' on "reassuring...

Well, yeah, that's exactly the problem. The biopsychosocial literature is filled with mentions of how the biomedical model is supreme, and present itself as the solution for it. Biopychosocial isn't the solution at all, but the problem is very real, the idea that they can throw millions of...

Academia was built to maximize the number of published papers, with no regard for quality. They got exactly what they paid for: lots of papers, most of them entirely useless.

Related... how? How are they related? This is basically everything AND the kitchen sink. Still completely stuck in the circular reasoning of: 1) there is no effective treatment, therefore 2) rehabilitate them, which is a treatment modality, but we pretend that it's not while claiming that it's...

Saw it yesterday and it hit the spot. Don't want to clutter the forum too much so didn't put attribution, but it's from James Baldwin. Wise dude.

A total, and predictable, waste of resources. As usual with "Imagine a world"-based medicine, what they find is that it would be cost-effective to have effective solutions to this problem. Which: duh. And although they don't have an effective solution, imagine if they did. In fact, just imagine...

But, is that really what they were? Or were they incorrectly coded this way? Which is by far the most plausible explanation. Because it becomes very important when causative assertions are made as a result. One thing I will never understand in this insane psychosomatic project is the total...

Bah, who needs evidence? This is evidence-based medicine! Ain't nobody got time for evidence here.

Doublethink: the acceptance of or mental capacity to accept contrary opinions or beliefs at the same time.