Search results

"roughly 2.8 million" is only a guess because it fails to account for demographics, but 0.8% was the pooled prevalence of "clinically assessed" cases worldwide in this systematic analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3616604/ I'd expect the USA to have lower prevalence due to...

I don't necessarily agree with Valerie's points, but is definitely a conversation we need to have and I've been thinking about this issue for years - the overall message, how to accurately represent the diverse views in the community effectively and so on. A lot of people look at the diversity...

If patients with post-cancer fatigue, post-polio and post-(select other neurological conditions) suffer from PEM, they may well have the same condition as us.

You vampires gotta be careful where you source your blood!

Indeed, that is the real question "What's keeping them from the same conclusion?" Similar outbreaks in Japan were mostly attributed to EV-D68 (the rest of the cases were attributed to Guillain-Barré syndrome). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5850449/

The high SES and substantially above average IQ of the participants suggests participation biases in studies like this one.

Indeed.

What the f....?

The CNS sensitisation demonstrated was short term and specific to the nerve(s) stimulated due to the initial injury. They didn't demonstrate widespread, long term (months to years) increased CNS sensitivity throughout the body, which is what most people now mean when they say central sensitisation.

Unblinded clinical intervention relying on subjective outcomes and no comparison group = evidence that cannot be generalised. Most statisticians chuckle when reading things like this. I can't (quickly) figure out who performed the statistical analysis on that study though...

Maybe they reached this conclusion because it matched their life experience, which is to say they don't suffer from these symptoms all the time!?!

"Central sensitisation" is code for: there is something wrong in the brain that is amplifying the perception. The implication is the perception is inaccurate. It is a hypothetical concept that dates back centuries. The irony is there are no demonstrable biological models for central...

You can't. That's why non-pharmacological studies cannot be considered Randomised Control Trials, because there is no true control group. They should instead be refered to Randomised Comparison Group Trials.

Presumably no stratification was possible due to small sample size?

First of all, there are selection biases against that - most brain diseases mean the offspring is not viable. Secondly, such failure modes would present in a specific way - namely have distinct signs that the failure is mental.

For a general overview of randomisation techniques, you may want to read this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3136079/

It might explain more than we realise. Clinic reputation may very well make a difference, at least in the age of the internet and/or peer support groups.

I thought that was a rhetorical question by Chrisb!?!

Yes, most of the research suggests there is no consistent evidence for "central sensitization" of pain in ME or CFS patients.

Where did you get the idea that Mark was ill with ME/CFS? Those links suggest he is an active researcher.