Search results

Talks the talk doesn't she :rolleyes:. Doesn't it just.

Realise a post of mine in the PACE trial thread is relevant here, so providing a link to it ... https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-general-thread-on-the-pace-trial.807/page-21#post-130229

The whole document is very well worth a read (or re-read), but the following are some of the things that stand out for me. All bolding mine.

Yes, and I think that is the point. Trial participants are not themselves likely to be familiar with scientific methodologies. The primary objective that was drilled into them was to do well, and I strongly suspect that the focus for that was to do well within the context of the trial itself. A...

Yes, with some people this is a strategy to convince how open and honest they 'obviously' are; it's human nature to warm to someone who does this, and to be more trusting of them. Con-artists are supremely good at it for instance. If someone apparently "opens up" about their oh-so-human...

Pretty sure there was a comment on social media by a PACE participant (cannot remember where now though), which said they backed off from some of their normal daily life activities, in order to try and save their energy for the trial's activities. Which would make a mockery of GET anyway...

Yes ... ... this cuts to the heart of it, especially for an illness that is still so poorly understood, likely has a number of sub-types, and many people might be misdiagnosed anyway. Just because a therapy seems to help some people, does not in anyway justify its use when such an enormously...

Weird though, because when I first looked at lunch time it most definitely said the account was suspended. Only when I looked a short while ago did it say the page was deleted.

Makes sense. A debate just before Christmas is unlikely to get the engagement it deserves.

From the link in post 26. Now it says the page does not exist.

Twitter account suspended?!

Yes, the BPS folk have never denied a potential physiological initial trigger condition. What will really count is what this research deems the perpetuating factors to be down to, which they have always said is down to unhelpful illness beliefs, blah blah.

Let's hope this can be trusted, given KingsIoPPN => Kings Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience.

So a 10% difference on subjective outcomes for improvement, from unblinded treatments.

This is probably the best indicator of how fatally flawed it is to have the word "fatigue" as part of the condition's name. And why this group of people were so determined to have PwME labelled as having Chronic Fatigue Syndrome ... all about patients' perceptions of their illness, thereby...

Am I right in thinking that even those numbers took no account of the (notional) control arm results, effectively inflating those numbers still further?

Although there is some validity to that, I should have thought the changes could have been normalised to a fair degree, given that employment market changes would be pretty well understood. It's way beyond a cop-out. It's a blatant admission of the presumption that a person's lifestyle and...

No, actually when I re-read it, it is highly ambiguous! :D.

That sounds pretty significant, as well as clarifying the Cochrane issues with ME are by no means unique. Unless Cochrane buck their ideas up pretty fast, their name is going to slide ignominiously and irretrievably into the gutter. And only themselves to blame.

This would be the same as for my wife (the one with ME). To me what you describe fits with both what you and I say. Note I am not talking about muscle weakness per se, but simply about restricted energy flow into those muscles. The difference is subtle, but crucially different. A damaged car...