Search results

I'm confused about the numbers in this paper. The say there were three categories--cases of PCF suspected by the reporter but apparently not confirmed by CACRC (262 cases); suspected by the reporter AND confirmed by CACRC (147); and then a third category of confirmed PCF by the CACRC but for...

I think this would likely be very difficult to figure out with certainty.

https://thesicktimes.org/2025/09/26/long-covid-is-not-fnd-but-some-patients-are-getting-diagnosed-with-it-heres-what-to-do-if-it-happens-to-you/

https://virology.ws/2025/09/25/trial-by-error-cochrane-cfs-me-exercise-review-may-not-apply-to-patients-diagnosed-with-newer-me-cfs-definitions-per-lead-author/

this could indicate AI perhaps?

seems like they were shared only with CB, who was the patient on the TMG committee.

https://virology.ws/2025/09/08/trial-by-error-australian-investigators-blame-me-cfs-patient-advocates-for-poor-recruitment-in-active-video-gaming-trial/

They found the funding to assess the BPS approach to homebound with the failed FINE study, the "sister trial" to PACE. There needs to be similar funding for biomedical studies, so they have the bandwidth to collect samples etc from homebound.

you're right. I had glanced at it and misread it. But I'm from the country that has rejected vaccines. So, you know, everything I say is up for grabs and nothing can be taken for granted.

good points. It will be curious to see what happens to it in peer review, and where.

it's a case series of patients, not a trial. I assume a trial might come next? I think case studies can be useful and interesting for ideas but obviously are not comparable to evidence from a trial.

yeah, well, I wouldn't get my hopes up about that. but nice thought!!

Not sure what this refers to?

unfortunately, we no longer believe in vaccines in the U.S.

Ah, thanks--in the references, I have two numbered 2. I'll fix.

I sent a letter to the journal. https://virology.ws/2025/08/27/trial-by-error-letter-to-eclinicalmedicine-about-exercise-recommendations-in-flawed-meta-analysis-of-long-covid-interventions/

great phrase--and idea!!

https://virology.ws/2025/08/23/trial-by-error-hungarian-experts-make-goulash-out-of-nice-recommendations/

pretty much, yes.

I checked in with Chris about this. He pointed out that the number comes from a different paper that found a point prevalence estimate (current prevalence, as opposed to lifetime prevalence) of 410,000. So yes, the lifetime prevalence figure would not represent current (point) prevalence. but...