Search results

Thanks. A partial sentence that was not supposed to be there.

thanks! I appreciate that.

https://virology.ws/2023/09/04/trial-by-error-just-the-latest-gibberish-from-professor-chalder/

It's not an either-or situation here. I think a high-profile paper like this in a Nature journal will get a lot of attention and gives great credibility to the research actually going on. That so many of the major researchers have signed onto this makes it that much more forceful a statement.

You're talking to someone who understands nothing about technology and online anything. I don't really know what any of that means and thinking about trying to figure it out fills me with anxiety. :(

Oh, good!

Of course! The construct is ridiculous when you're talking about people with serious illnesses. Their realistic appraisals will be read as "catastrophizing" if you don't think they're really sick.

i wasn't sure why that happened. it wasn't a problem on one I did yesterday.

Chris' sound seems low. I hope it's sufficiently audible.

Ah, I was using the publicly available figure. I will update.

Yes, "predict" in this sense is a misnomer--it sounds causative but is just an association.

Could someone explain the publishing process here? This was a pre-print but is now a peer-reviewed study on the same platform? So this is the final publication for these data, right? Unlike papers on other pre-print servers, it hasn't been sent out to other journals for possible publication?

It's not clear to me that in this passage she's dismissing the idea that they could cause ME/CFS so much as the idea that these would be widespread causes, given the limited spread of these viral illnesses. She does seem to question whether the Dubbo study overall showed anything about ME/CFS.

i think this is the take-away for me. Of course the findings don't show that exercise would be helpful. But the findings are helpful in pointing out that this is a common-sense position and the Dutch CBT study's claim of no relationship between fatigue and activity is absurd.

Exactly. The Centre is not a journal--it's a collection of affiliated academics who each will have whatever they publish in a journal highlighted on the Centre's site as a publication from an affiliated academic. Nothing unusual here--just standard academic process.

I assume that's a good thing???

Is there any further information on his departure from Recovery Norway?

I can't keep up! I'll be curious to see going forward how many of them continue to call it #2 and/or cite the 16% prevalence statistics from the Stone/Carson/Sharpe papers from the Scottish neurology study. I assume they'll just call it common--or now, for inpatient, the most common.

Gee, thanks! (I think!)

This is an excellent response, and good to hold them to account!