Search results

It's alphabetical. I cheated a bit. But I thought some of the juxtapositions (the second list) seemed remarkably apt.

I thought the French resume page was rather good - you hardly need to read the book after this. It includes: Expressions et termes fréquents academic analyses approaches authors behaviour biological brain activity brain imaging cent Chinese chology chronic fatigue syndrome claim coauthors...

This seems pessimistic to me. Repeating the result does not require GWAS, just a repeat analysis of this gene in another cohort. A tiny cohort should do if this gene variant is relevant to a substantial number of PWME. When we got a piece of information of this sort in RA the whole story...

I think you are probably wrong to worry. However much they dig heels in on PACE the possibility of letting themselves off the hook by funding some decent biology will be attractive to them. After all, they do not want activism to discourage people from researching ME.

I have emailed Stuart Pocock and he does not want to get involved.

As I understood it the problem with the 'controls' in PACE is that they are not equivalent in the sense that they should match/mimic all reasonable contextual influences not specific to the test. In other words a placebo control for a strawberry flavoured pink pill should not be a tasteless...

I get the distinct impression that the MRC and SMC feel on the defensive! There is a guy with orange hair who tweets like this.

Actually not, because the shape is similar for both sexes, even if exaggerated in females. That is another issue. Adolescent ME may have a different cause from adult ME. Chris's friend had better do another sub-analysis - though I wouldn't be surprised if the UK Biobank only had people over 18.

Heapsand heaps of examples. The obvious one for me is rheumatoid arthritis and seronegative arthritis - we have only realised they have completely unrelated causes since about 1980. Until about 1960 nobody thought they were different much. Diabetes is caused by two completely different...

Maybe someone had a quiet word about not putting your foot in your mouth when you open it.

Well there you go. I told Chris he had to analyse men and women separately in June. That seems a very pertinent question though @Londinium. The idea that there are at least two underlying causes for ME, one mostly female and one equally or maybe even more male seems to every plausible. I...

Your'e right, it was @BurnA. Apologies to all.

@Robert 1973 has alerted me to a book 'Psychology in Crisis' coming out that mentions PACE and a few of us. I think everyone on S4ME should get a copy.

Well, if the word on the street here is that he is a good egg I might have a go at contacting him. Since LSHTM has an excellent biomedical ME research group and is part of UCL and fur is flying in the public domain there are probably enough excuses for me to approach him without him seeing me as...

?

@JohnTheJack, Please put me on it. I don't see myself composing another one as well.

Not that I know of. He is not someone I know. Statisticians seem to be quite good at missing problems with PACE methodology because they are as much psychological as mathematical but someone on the ball should understand.

She has a lab background, but as I pointed out in my letter to her, the psychology that leads to bias in research pervades lab research just as much as clinical trials. In order to understand why PACE is uninterpretable all you need is common sense and a bit of experience with human nature.

Yes but the version sent off is always the finalfinalfinal version.

But the reason why she is in the position she is is that she is expected to understand good experimental design and on that basis to be able to recognise and reject lobbying on behalf of the unbackable. She can only reject such lobbying if she herself understands the problem. Otherwise she is...