Search results

What kind of cake? I need some evidence-based cake!!!!!

Exactly...

Here is Lloyd 1988 talking about how much better the name "CFS" is than "ME". https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(88)92107-1/fulltext

"Excellent" must be a relative term, because 66% is still not terribly good.

She said that via email to David Tuller? Here is what she said on the SMC site: Calling it psuedoscience and having concern it is just publicity for a commercial company...

What about our own backyard? There are candidate gene association studies in ME or CFS that are likely spurious, but that doesn't stop many people from believing the findings.

There were researchers publishing things on ME from Australia in the 80s. Unfortunately, Australians tend to follow the lead of the rest of the world and this is no exception. Australians were following the lead of the CDC (1988 Holmes) and UK psychiatrists (Oxford 1991) to separate ME from CFS...

Those are good points, I have one suggestion, but it could be a little controversial: They could imagine themselves having the illness. I mean there was a big swing in the perception of HIV once the general public started realising it could happen to them too.

Yes! "mild" should be banished to oblivion.

Still looks like more haystack than needles...

I'm sure most journalists reporting on this article will conveniently forget this bit.

This group has been fishing in this data for positive correlations quite some time, publishing many manuscripts each on one particular finding. As far as I know, their set of hypotheses were not pre-published and if they were, most of these associations would be published in a single manuscript...

The lesson is those delivering the assessments need to be independent from those delivering the services. Redefining "recovery" or whatever post-hoc and then claiming you met the pre-defined target is fraud.

Most replies to most questions received by politicians are standard responses curated by their staff.

Yep.... Coincidentally, protocol defined recovery following the PACE trial was about ~5% and independent of group allocation.

That's not what he said... But it is clear from the steering committee notes that they changed the outcome measures and thresholds before the formal analysis because of the weak results of the FINE trial (and potentially an overall feeling by those who saw patients that results were not strong)...

Indeed. Welcome Simon, I hope you enjoy your stay on this forum! *waves*

A point to consider is that there is a fundamental difference in worldview between the psychiatric view and other views. The psychiatric view puts the self-belief/reporting as fundamental. Sharpe and White have hinted as much over the years, when they say stuff like: patients don't care about...

I'm not sure how to interpret this one either. The reduction of total acylcarnitine in the "high fatigue" group does relate to previous studies and there does appear to be evidence of reduced fatty acid metabolism in CFS patients in other studies, though whether this is due to different activity...

Something to hide is a bold claim, but what is abundantly clear is they are not acting in good faith and seem to have deep contempt for anyone who asks difficult questions. I mean patients demonstrated to them (in The Lancet) their criteria for "normal range" was fundamentally flawed, in...