Search results

especially when they withhold the objective data--what little there is.

Yes there is! Because I re-wrote the headline and somehow left a word in. Amazing how many times I looked at it and didn't notice. And a few typos were pointed out but no one noticed that. Thanks!

fyi...https://virology.ws/2023/05/25/trial-by-error-dutch-cbt-study-for-long-covid-reports-proves-that-unblinded-studies-with-subjective-outcomes-produce-positive-results-as-predicted/

where did he talk about this? Does anyone have handy the Dutch study that included the long-delayed actigraphy results from three papers that showed they did not reflect the positive subjective reports published years earlier from the same studies? Was Knoop involved in one or more of those?

There are only so many stupid acronyms that can be used I gyess

There are multiple ways to express the two constructs. In fact, what I have is the same as what wikipedia has, but written differently. The wikipedia definitions look backwards to me but actually represent the same thing. But it took me a while to work this out and I had to consult with an epi...

The wikipedia definitions don't seem to fit with the findings in the 2011 study. Five out of eight FND patients had positive Hoover's sign. None of the 116 FND-negatives had a positive Hoover's sign. The specificity was 100% because a positive Hoover's sign indicated they definitely had FND...

Ha! No reason to apologize! I am very capable of making mistakes and I always pay attention to your points. That paragraph describing the two constructs was written by my epi colleague and I'm 99.5% sure it's right--and that's Hoover's sign levels!! I think wikipedia has it backwards...

I'm not sure if they realize how it sounds to non-neurologists to say that all neurologists know this but we have no evidence.

you mean, they would be getting false positives? not if specificity is 100% or close to it. In that case you would have people who purportedly have FND but were not being found. For example, the eight with FND in the 2011 study. Five of them were positive on Hoover's, and no one who hadn't been...

100% specific means every positive is a true positive. There should be no false positives. There could be false negatives. ADDED: But if I'm wrong I'm sure it will be pointed out soon enough by those who will challenge the larger point!!

Thanks for the comments and highlights! It took a while to write. I'm pretty sure that google quote has it backwards. Specificity is about positives and sensitivity is about negatives. But it is very complicated and even the epidemiologists I know sometimes phrase it wrong.

Assuming this is a reference to the famous line reported to have been said by Rudy Guiliani during his campaign to overturn the 2020 US election...Yes, this is largely the point. I thought of citing Guiliani in the post but decided against it not because I didn't find the analogy appropriate but...

I am sorry--this is very long!!

Luckily, Carson blocked me quite a while ago so I can't see his blatherings. But I'm curious so will find the thread. David Perez made a similar comment to Koroshetz

Why wouldn't they have included the actigraphs at T2 as well? the absence of the data indicates they had null results and they will publish it in five years without mentioning what study it was actually from.

That's disturbing.

Thanks for tracking!

What???

That would be great. can you put them in touch with me?