Search results

I agree. If there is a plan, I think the goal is to influence Cochrane's editors. Basically they're trying to suggest that it is not in Cochrane's interests to be seen changing their mind towards a view put forth by online activists.

Which illness is likely to have the most grant applications? Illness A: $100 million of funding with an above average success rate. Illness B: $5 million of funding with a below average success rate. Seriously, ask any research group how much time/money/effort is required to write a research...

What is "clinically important" is qualitative, it cannot be defined by some arbitrary statistical procedure and most importantly, it needs to be defined by patients, rather than defining it as what is most convenient to researchers.

Yes, Sharpe has committed two fallacies - first, the red herring approach, instead of countering the claims about how the data and methodology fail to meet the quality standards that would be required in other fields, he instead says it's all about patient beliefs instead. The second is that...

The problem for them is that we have seen the emails of the former editor - we can use that to show that complaints about methodology are quite serious.

I've heard of similar cases in Australia. 1/1000 chance of cerebral palsy due to injuries during birth is far too high to be acceptable in my opinion.

You mean why do they publish articles by the likes of Peter White. I think it's because they think they're giving a 'balanced' view (publishing polar opposite views) Not all the articles they publish are negative. https://www.theguardian dot com/society/chronic-fatigue-syndrome

I'm not terribly convinced about the IDO Metabolic Trap Hypothesis explaining either the epidemiology, nor the specific pattern of symptoms. I think the reasoning about genetics is a classic case of confirmation bias... The modelling is intriguing but it is fairly non-specific and could be...

It is certainly curious, the next step is to see if the results are maintained in a prospective study over time.

Beware of the sharks...

The main problem with pharmacological treatments is their efficacy was overstated. Obviously the solution is to more realistically appraise the efficacy of pharmacological treatments, not to overstate the efficacy of non-pharmacological/surgical treatments.

They are basing this on the Cochrane review - so if the review changes, then so must this commentary...

Well it has been over one month with no change...

This would be pretty obvious to users - dropouts when they check their data. I don't think these users are being misled about their heartrates, I think they're being sold ineffective junk. I find light based heart rate monitors to be unreliable and I have pale skin...

Notable for the fact that none of them are exercise physiologists. Their article makes a number of non-evidence based claims. Compliance in particular - they should note the fact that there is no data on actual compliance with the therapy, specifically actigraphy and heart rate data. Likewise...

Wow, very interesting!

They don't. https://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12916-014-0167-5

That is not mild in any stretch of the imagination...

One problem with reducing "quality of life" or "ability to carry out day to day activities" is it doesn't take into account within-disease variation. It says nothing of the degree of variation and overlap...

Indeed. It could suggest that "moderate" and "severely" are two different diseases. Or that the results are null...