Search results

See: https://forums.phoenixrising.me/threads/recording-of-esther-crawley-inaugural-lecture-on-february-24.49493/

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

More GIGO. The problem is the lack of prospective studies. What you get is selection bias - eg only people who believe in the association actually submit their questionnaires to the researchers.

I agree. It is hard to have an "absolute measure" of recovery though, as there is no true basis for a clear demarcation

The concept of "recovery" is always sketchy when you have been ill for so long and no real point of comparison to know what that is.

Agreed. It's too easy to be seen to be doing the right things with regard to "involvement", while you're actually stacking the deck against any substantial changes being made.

That is Esther Crawley's clinic. http://www.ruh.nhs.uk/patients/services/clinical_depts/paediatric_cfs_me/info.asp This shows clear selection biases in the CFS patients that does not necessarily exist in the other samples, namely referal to a clinic that focuses on psychological treatments...

Related documentary:

I'd say no it is not. It is hard to say, but population based studies have found similar (often higher, but that could be due to methodological difference) prevalence in South American and Asian populations, as well as in non-white populations in the USA and UK.

Okay, thanks for letting us know. It seems quite unprofessional that there was no communication throughout the process, including no announcement that a committee has been selected.

The sad part is he's not going to recover using their programme...

It's an interesting hypothesis, but unfortunately, it's also almost certainly wrong.

I don't understand why they're talking about "conversion" of chronic fatigue into CFS. The demarcation is purely diagnostic - whether there is another medical condition that is presumed to cause the symptoms or the symptoms have lasted more than 6 months, to meet the CFS criteria. The...

The results provided in the abstract aren't the ones of interests - it is not peak cardiac output or VO2Peak that we are interested in, because it's possible that patients simply worked harder on the second test and achieved a higher heart rate. We're interested in stroke volume and O2 pulse...

As Jonathan said, patients have an inherent interest in whether treatments work. This is not a conflict of interest. There is no primary or secondary gain in this case.

She knows it's a magnificent statement. First and foremost, she's been a 'consumer' advocate in the medical field for decades.

Has anyone heard anything back about the formation of the patient advisory committee which took applications back in June/July 2018? http://microbediscovery.org/2018/06/22/applicants-needed-for-columbia-mecfs-research-center-community-advisory-commitee/

That's more or less what I expect to have happened... ;)

I'd just like to point out that the placebo effect is much more limited and specific than the range of biases that can affect subjective self report outcomes. A "placebo controlled trial" is blinded to control for more than just the placebo effect.

I don't believe they will have a problem with Basian's blog. It wasn't just what Coyne was blogging about, there were a few incidents where his behaviour was problematic...