Search results

This is my gut feeling as well. I think it's very helpful to counter these things when they appear and post rapid responses and so on, but it's also important not presume that this one or the next one will really impact this ongoing struggle. Responding to each incident with maximal outrage...

Hm, I'd never heard of this group.

what is the link for this response?

on what sorts of grounds?

They've also rejected my request for a correction: Hello Dr. Tuller, Thank you for your concern regarding this article. We appreciate you taking the time to reach out and share your thoughts. Please know that our Editor-in-Chief, as well as the Editor of Neurology Clinical Practice, have both...

Yes, but they used that non-statistically significant difference of .03 to calculate the cost-effectiveness

https://virology.ws/2025/05/15/trial-by-error-pushback-on-brief-outpatient-rehab-trial-for-long-covid-from-norwegian-ideological-brigades/

yes. If you throw everything at them, they can answer something and ignore key points. This way, there’s only one point.

Not often. But it's worth letting them know someone is paying attention. I find best to focus on just one point that's a definite error rather than going on about the various other questions about the paper.

https://virology.ws/2025/05/13/trial-by-error-a-letter-seeking-a-correction-in-fmd-physiotherapy-paper/

https://virology.ws/2025/05/12/trial-by-error-when-primary-outcomes-yield-null-results-in-clinical-trials-fnd-experts-prefer-their-secondary-outcomes/

The cost-effectiveness article tried to explain why the CGI-I scale is better than SF-36 as a primary outcome. They say this: "The secondary outcome, the patient-reported Clinical Global Impression Improvement score, allows for a broader assessment of potential impacts that specialist...

who is he?

https://virology.ws/2025/05/09/trial-by-error-australian-gps-keep-promoting-exercise-treatments-for-me-cfs/

I'm on top of it!!!

Right, but beyond that...they added up so many various items and it's hard to tell how accurate these accounts are and also whether they really reflect whether or not someone did or did not get the intervention. It all seems pretty arbitrary.

moved posts regarding the cost-effectiveness paper, I'm a bit perplexed about an intervention with null results that is still found to be "cost-effective." How does that work??

I think you're giving them too much credit. I doubt they have even. heard of Physios4ME--I think they exist in a somewhat insular world. What would be the advantage to deliberately having a similar name?

https://virology.ws/2025/04/21/trial-by-error-null-results-for-physiotherapy-in-functional-motor-disorder-trial/

Oh, I see--thanks. Economics uses different methods. Ok, I get that. This seems self-serving to me: "Another important contributor to the different findings is likely to be that the primary outcome of clinical effectiveness was an overly narrow view of the potential benefits of...