This boom-and-bust never made sense to me for that reason, because it presumed the same individuals were doing both, and the impulses would seem to cancel each other out. The whole thing doesn't make any sense psychologically.
They're trying to revive the term "post-infectious fatique syndrome" (PIFS), which is the term COFFI uses and is mentioned in the now-outdated Fukuda definition from 1994. On the other hand, Dr Iwasaki and others are now using the term "post-acute infection syndrome" (PAIS). I know there's been...
exactly. they've lost control of the narrative and they want it back, which is understandable. but it was their narrative for decades and it produced nothing.
It sounds like they're surprised there are no differences on the regular instrument but aren't surprised there are no differences on the form adapted for medical settings? I don't get it.
Sorry. In US usage, the US government is not just the executive branch. Congress is also part of the US government. The judiciary is not. But otherwise "government" here is a broad term. Every member of Congress is a "government" official. Any official at an executive branch agency is also a...
This is a really good point, and it made me laugh. And it also made me sad. Because you're right, the revolution here could have happened whenever if people had not accepted such crap research as actionable. But part of what helped the shift is the Institute of Medicine and NIH reports from...
Thanks, Trish and Richard. Since the previous piece was published in May, 2021, before the release of the final NICE guidelines, we thought it would be worthwhile to provide an update and reinforce the point that events had continued to shift in the appropriate direction.
In the U.S., Health Affairs is generally viewed as the leading health policy journal. Not sure if it's read much elsewhere. What's great about these Forefront articles (until they gave it this name, it was just the blogging platform) is that they are edited in-house rather than peer-reviewed. I...
That's a pretty salient acknowledgement. Does anyone know of other studies where participants have been tossed out for not sufficiently believing in the effectiveness of the treatment??
Thanks. I've tried. It's really beyond my control. I've explained that these are "Tuller donations" and not "Berkeley donations," that it's a waste of resources and so on, and I'm told ok, something has been noted in the system, but then I hear people still get these things. And I think what...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.