Search results

I heard from someone whose letter, which was critical, was accepted. apparently several are being accepted and the authors will respond, per standard, according to this communication.

Well, our letter was already rejected.

The American Conservative is a fringe publication that essentially appeals to the likes of Trump supporters. I wouldn't waste a second fretting about it.

She didn't quote Gaffney. I don't think this can be considered a "conflict of interest" that requires disclosure from a journalism ethics perspective.

Shure is on the staff of The New Republic, which is a well-known historic publication that has gone through many iterations over the decades, most often with a center-left orientation. Gaffney is at Harvard and publishes in lots of places. I know their articles can be upsetting but I think it's...

me too!!

And I've blogged about this editorial of theirs, and yet they still keep on publishing studies with the design we all know is shit.

Thanks for highlighting! both are easily tweaked. It's always something. I'm glad to see the guideline itself does at least include this statement in its description of PEM: "Post-exertional malaise may also be referred to as post-exertional symptom exacerbation." Added: So perhaps what appeared...

Coda article, When the doctor doesn't listen, David Tuller (focus on Maeve O'Neill's story) https://www.codastory.com/waronscience/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-long-covid-unexplained-symptoms/ Moderator note: We have an In Memory thread for Maeve here: Maeve O'Neill For general discussion of the...

yes, this seems to be the problem with all these constructs--like "catastrophizing" etc. If you assume the symptoms are "functional" then any concern is catastrophizing.

This is false, as I have documented. This figure includes many people who do not have the "rule-in" signs now required for an FND diagnosis.

The literature seems to posit that the structural changes might be as a result of the functional disorder, not the cause of it

I like this phrase.

and on top of all the above concerns, it's a cross-sectional study! No conclusions of causality in either direction should be drawn. these are associations only.

I wasn't sure I agreed with his analysis completely, and this was one of the places that did raise a couple questions. I think he might be using "certainty" with respect to quality of the evidence but NOT in the GRADE sense. In other words, he's saying, the quality was by definition abysmal...

and of course it's the Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Right, but it could be any representative the stakeholder organization wanted to designate for this purpose? Rather than only, say, named officers like the president of whichever royal college?

by the way, I had some communication with the journalist who leaked the snippets. I posted an update to my blog post. this was not an embargoed copy--he was sent a draft of what was apparently submitted to the journal. It's not clear it's been accepted or even peer-reviewed, although presumably...

was it the nature of the roundtable that only the heads of stakeholder groups could go? I mean, why didn't one of the ideologues themselves show up to argue these eight points?

This is unfortunate of course.