Search results

I think it's good that physiotherapists have knowledge of ME but I don't see what use it could have to ME patients other than for unrelated problems, where the specific limitations of ME are taken into account rather than treated as hostile noncompliance to be referred to gaslighting "therapy"...

Irony taken all the way to 11. He is describing himself exactly, with painful precision, and somehow thinks he is describing his critics. I don't know if it's delusion or projection, or likely both. He is the very problem he is describing, a perfect avatar of Dunning-Kruger and Peter principle...

Likely followed by a talk on vaccine safety by Andrew Wakefield and a panel on the scientific method sponsored by Goop.com and NaturalNews. The talk is the pros and cons so I guess it's worthwhile debate to involve people smearing, bullying and insulting patients trying to engage with health...

Ooof. The contrast between public and private research should be a punch of embarrassment in the gut of everyone involved in the public side. One's a clown car, the other is actual research by serious researchers. It's like a two-stage festival where one side plays real bands while the other...

This shift happens to align with the disastrous status quo. It is actually the foundation of why things are so bad, integrating woo-woo alternative medicine into the fold of genuine medical practice by lowering the bar for an alternative research tract built on clinical psychology, itself in the...

It's almost inevitable that proponents of spiritual-based alternative medicine will use this opportunity opened by psychobabble-based alternative medicine. It will be quite interesting, to watch people slowly come to that realization and be confused about why people can't tell the difference now...

So the journal raised issues with the paper and still published it. Cochrane did the same with its reviews. Medical journals with an international reputation and outreach are knowingly publishing papers and reviews that do not pass their own peer review criteria and disavow all responsibility in...

The premise of those statements is that in GET is some secret ingredient based on specialist knowledge, which is not the case. This is a common trope, basically a No True Scotsman fallacy, that only real GET done by certified professionals, blessed by the PACE bishops, should work, even though...

Color me skeptical. "Hey, chief, should we, I don't know, validate that description?" "... nah"

Only one reply by Erik and it's a pretty apt. Can't really fish for replies he could pretend are abusive since he blocked nearly everyone who would bother. Victim mentality only works when you convince others of it, that's all he's trying to do. But his rambling article is so bad that I doubt...

Too bad this is always skipped and never actually happens as indicated. It's literally impossible with available tools and techniques to make that distinction. May as well rely on the confirmation of a unanimous decision from a panel of fairies for all that this description matters. And who...

We know the answer to that. The logic over the safety of those treatments is entirely circular. They are safe because there are no reports of harm and it is not possible to report harm because they are known to be safe. The trials did not do due diligence and neither is the implementation of...

Especially arbitrary scales. Neither of HADS, SF-36 or CFQ are of much relevance to ME, in combination or in isolation. Their choice is nothing more than a matter of preference, they are not validated or adequate for this purpose, especially when objective measures are possible, like working...

They simply have no idea what they're talking about. Somehow that's waived off, as if they could not possibly be mistaken but that is the core issue here, they are completely out of their depth and insist it is the patients who are confused about our own illness, that it's reality that is wrong...

Well, it is an attack on the credibility of science. Imagine if this dumbing down spread through all of medicine. It's a genuine slippery slope that could end up downgrading the value and effectiveness of all medical practice, including "respectable" diseases.

This is what will hurt them in the long term. Arbitrary decisions are exactly what science, even the evidence-based kind, is exactly all about not being. Something we've also seen in the recent paper about the "effectiveness" of CBT/GET in "fatigue clinics", that there is no standard, quality...

Petulant is definitely a proper term to apply here. Not a good look. It shows a level of unprofessionalism that is simply unacceptable in medicine. They are clearly incapable of the responsibility that is required and should never work unsupervised, or ideally at all.

Uuhhhh. Right. That makes as much sense as the Kochs center for the study of renewable energy or the Derek Zoolander for children who can't read good and wanna do other stuff good to. Echoes of Sharpe arguing about morals: to any debate, even about morals and ethics, someone will argue against...

That last sentence by Tovey is clear-headed and shows he understands that not only this is indefensible but that it always was and should never have been published, that the recommendations made in the review do not stem from reliable evidence but rather what its authors want to be true despite...

I guess that's what the "collaboration" part is. Cochrane makes editorial decisions but not unilaterally. Unfortunately the execution is completely broken.