Search results

Ah, thanks for noting that. I'll have to take a closer look. that does sound quite fishy.

is that clearly the case? by the reference cited, it did meet the MCID from a 2019 analysis. But as ME/CFS skeptic pointed out, their power calculations used a different value.

you mean because of questions over the MCID? What makes these null results rather than results that appear to be on the margins of clinical significance even if they're statistically significant?

Thanks to all! I'm relieved it worked out again. The link is still open through the weekend. In the past, I've gotten contacted a day or two later by people who missed or forgot the deadline, and I need to get Berkeley to re-open the link so they can donate. Because this one ended on a weekend...

exactly. you can only show what happened after therapy--but no way to show whether the therapy was "effective" or had anything to do with anything. Maybe they'd have gotten even better without the exercise.

Yes, need to take a look. What happened to PACE? I'm taking a week or two mostly away from work because of the death of a friend in NY--helping the partner, etc.

Can you be specific about the level of ignorance? I mean, I haven't read it, but it does seem from a glance at the abstract that, as is suggested, they're changing or at least shifting their tune. Doesn't pointing to immune activation undermine their persistent insistence that there's nothing...

I'm planning to interview Brian about the book.

This worries you because it suggests the findings could be influenced or biased in some way toward finding positive things related to the popoular ideas?

Thanks. I thought it was important to try to keep it balanced and not try to downplay these cases or suggest they're all fake, since clearly this does happen, with unknown frequency, given the shortage of reliable statistics. i mostly wanted to highlight that the "warning signs" overlap and that...

I wondered if I was included in this category.

Are these AI-generated errors?

grimacing? How is that defined? Maybe they just were havng gas and about to fart?

Yup. They're challenging the specific FND diagnosis but accepting the construct as valid if the "strict" criteria are met--even though I don't see the rule-in criteria as being particularly strict. Presumably the paper indicates that there were no observable "rule-in" signs to justify the FND...

In this framing, would the impacts of this remission wear off down the road? Or is the suggestion that the anaesthesia-induced changes would actually be long-lasting? Seems like it might useful to review whether non-CCI ME/CFS patients who have had general anaesthesia for other reasons had...

Yes, I'm composing a new version without the apparently offensive phrases--even though I consider the statement that the findings are "preposterous" to be "evidence-based."

good question. The only really legitimate correction is to refute the initial claims. I am definitely curious as to what they will do. But at least they've acknowledged a problem. That's not that common these days!!!

Amazingly, I got the following today from the journal, saying a correction is in process. What exactly it will say is unclear. They also suggested that I resubmit my letter with less inflammatory language if I'd like it to be considered for publication. ] "Dear Dr Tuller, Thank you for your...

I'm curious what you see as the harm of the study itself--as opposed to the harm of the approach it embodies. What do you see as direct harm from his paper--again, as opposed to the harm done by the approach, regardless of the presence or absence of this paper?

Ok, thanks! It's a rather confusing presentation.