Search results

As it is with us. I'm fairly convinced that this alone counts for at least half of the questionnaire effect "benefits" in the overall body of ME psychosocial research. Most likely more than that but I'm just playing it safe.

That should have been the SMC arm in PACE but since the PACE team are dishonest hacks and couldn't allow themselves to fail they set it up as an ersatz comparison and made it meaningless. With accurate and relevant information from genuinely well-informed GPs, including symptom management, the...

Oh yeah, forgot about those. They were awful to the point where they should be considered disinformation. Extremely dishonest and clueless at best.

On balance there does not seem to be an observable energy deficit, so the total available metabolic energy seems about normal. So the energy has to be used somewhere, as it's not expelled as waste either. The hypermetabolism may be localized and upstream, depriving the available energy for less...

It's alternative discussion!

Only on the Agardy response, not Michiel's. The Agardy response is available on the main article by Sharpe/Greco, accessible by the tab or linked from here: https://mh.bmj.com/content/early/2019/06/18/medhum-2018-011598.responses.

As far as I can tell, the science on food intolerances is about as chaotic as that on "chronic fatigue", the symptom™. So really impossible to say until that moves forward from the starting line of "there may or may not be such a thing as food intolerance, or something like it". It's quite...

Then I'm even more confused. There were supposed to be 2 types of responses, I guess that's the difference, but that makes for lousy conversation.

I don't know if they're limited recordings but I very much like the shortness of the presentations that are published. I can handle 10-25 min, usually anyway. Multiple presentations that go for 1h each is just too much content to go through. This right here is a good model and the audio quality...

I don't see Michiel's response in the "Responses" tab of the article, only Agardy's. Not impressed with their publishing system. Bit awkward for a publishing company.

It also doesn't help that millions are "diagnosed" with anxiety and depression by merely answer 1-2 questions. The real "crisis of mental health" is that it's enormously inflated, by people with no health problems as well as by people like us who have dismissed health problems. It's not as if...

Hey, if some people didn't have double standards they wouldn't have any.

Yup :( And being former head of the RCGP explains a lot about how the lousy NHS internal training sourced from the "rousing reassurance" FINE trial happened. Also why, despite there being no evidence for it, the NHS qualifies ME as somatoform in practice and internal documentation, in...

Disability is the only support that has helped me. Literally. Disability denial should be a crime, instead it's encouraged. Blergh.

Excellent response! Ignores the pretend argument by Sharpe and focuses on the real points of controversy.

So that would make it independent validation of this? I don't see Shukla on this paper. From the wikiwikiwik: Abnormal, but how much so?

Only when they agree with them, of course. That's the only grading allowed. "Fake news" isn't "fake" because it's false, it's "fake" because it's bad.

From the phrasing it's not so much high-quality as "not so overly biased as to render the conclusions suspect". Overall quality in unblinded trials with self-reported outcomes is always of the lowest possible tier. I doubt that any CBT study would qualify as high quality on its own merits...

Really awful answers by Gerada. Asked about the reliability of unblinded trials with self-reported outcomes (in pharma trials no less, to remove the ideological blinders) and the feigned outrage is directed at Cochrane for obviously finding such evidence to be weak (despite actually publishing...

At bottom of the post by Kalliope are images of correspondence: I only skimmed through but noticed a few interesting things.