Search results

Yes, the timing seems to be forming a bit of a pattern now.

It is notable that the main conclusion which was a sticking point for David Tovey, namely downgrading the evidence from "probably" to "may" and from "moderate" to "low-moderate" has not made it into the revised article. (See the FOI correspondence on 29th of May) I suggest this is a point of...

For fucks sake!

Interesting. Fox does indeed mention Finn in this article: https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/beware-creating-fake-news-on-mmr/ Which I largely agree with - remember that the proportion of 5 year olds who have had at least one MMR dose is 94.9%, only 0.1% from the highs - those who only receive...

The most ridiculous part is the fact that people are jumping to far reaching conclusions based on sloppy questionnaires.

It's approximate. The rest, above and below the middle 68% (100-68)/2 https://www.mathsisfun.com/data/standard-normal-distribution-table.html (try the Z onwards setting)

There are two conclusions one can form after reading Wessely's study the first is there is little difference between depression and CFS. The second is the questionnaire lacks relevance or specificity. Now if the questionnaire was designed by asking patients what is relevant and associated...

This brings home the point. By "normal" they meant within or above 1 SD of normal, which assuming a gaussian distribution would be the top 84% (68+16) of the population. Using the actual distribution in the graph above, this would mean a PF function cutoff somewhere around 82-84. Meaning they...

That isn't the only one they initially looked at though. So you have to correct for multiple comparisons and the odds go way down. When 90% (or whatever) of the general population has the SNP, at best it is clear the SNP is not the most important part. I don't know why the gene testing is...

Direct links will be tracked back to this thread.

To claim the wait period before a treatment is a "control" is laughable.

Or quality... Those professionals who think it is unimportant to critically read the method and results of a study, when you can just read the discussion and conclusion.

There is no magic cutoff, because it is a self report questionnaire with limited scope. In the real world, data like this is not clean. It's not just the potential for missing data but deliberate behaviour in answering the questionnaire in biased ways. It's quite possible to deliberately...

It's officially give awards to your mates season again!

The problem is there are hundreds if not thousands of possibilities that fit that criteria.

This is true, but I think the overall point remains - a Randomised Controlled (blinded comparison group) Trial is the minimum level of evidence and we need more evidence to determine the relevance. The classical examples are the use of antidepressants. We don't really know why they are...

I think Larun's argument is ridiculous because the patients who really don't like GET would never consent to participate in such a trial in the first place. Participants who are willing to participate in such a trial likely have "an open mind" if you know what I mean and even if they have...

Not to my satisfaction, no.

They still haven't bothered to ask patients with specific illnesses (and different backgrounds) whether these questions are understandable/easily answered and relevant.

I've had a lot of trouble trying to pin that down before...