Search results

And you clearly did not need anyone pushing CBT or GET at you to do so, I'm guessing.

This reminds me a bit of when I used to work developing PID controllers, and had some involvement in self-tuning of them (but only peripheral - the self-tuning math was too heavy for my capabilities). Even though only two variables were being being tuned (D always being set to I/4), the...

Are there formal guidelines for arriving at MCIDs? Or it is down to fingers waving in the air according to researchers wanting to report favourable results?

What a wonderful breath of fresh air that is, compared to the BPS approach seen for ME/CFS.

Lovely comment @Graham. [My bold] Absolutely! They are excuses of the feeblest kind. Even their plaintive claims of rebuttal are flawed, because they fail to effectively rebut anything. And especially at the other data, as yet not released. I suspect this is partly why they are so petrified of...

Or maybe a series of adverse contributing factors, only one or some of which might be metabolic traps. Possibly a metabolic trap mechanism could be the final straw pushing people into the severe state. This makes me ponder the possibility that severity might not simply be a smooth continuum of...

T'is more than irony. Downright hypocritical.

I'm not a scientist so apologies if these questions are naive. As I read this, the protein is not precisely repaired back to its original form, but more 'patched' so its functionality is restored, albeit with with two additional components that cancel out each others' effects. From this, can we...

I think yet again this will prove to be a serious own goal for Sharpe and Co. This blog, and especially the comments and exchange of comments, publicly exposes very clearly many of the flaws. Hopefully some good scientists may become newly aware of PACE and its ramifications, thanks to this blog...

The real question of course is: Why are the PACE authors so terrified of expert scientific scrutiny of their data? Surely it could not be fear of exposing even more research flaws? Maybe even worse? Their behaviour makes it very clear it is very unlikely to be mere concerns about patient...

Oh yes, I missed that :rofl:. Blog rating = truly tragic.

Also beware of course that this is being stated in the context of CFS, where the deconditioning theory is thoroughly debunked anyway. Do not want to inadvertently imply otherwise.

The simple truth is they have no sound scientific counter arguments to criticisms of their science, and so instead resort to what they do best - attack the people and not their criticisms. They just dress up their own ad hominem campaigns to sound convincing to the gullible.

Very nice post by someone:

That does not surprise me at all. I think @RDP is one of a rare breed at the moment.

Also this from Steve Lubet's same blog: "Impartiality might reasonably be questioned" ... clearly the BMJ Archives of Disease in Childhood Care editorial staff have pretty crap powers of reasoning. I wonder if that could be due to their own conflicts of interest by any chance. The words that...

Barring a minor typo at the beginning ('be' instead of 'me') that is an excellent focus on the absurdity of the authors' marking their own homework. Also really glad that he highlights this:

Have to hope this is a simple typo, and that is not really what they believe it is called! I wonder if someone can alert them to this.

I had not appreciated the significance of this until @RDP commented on it. Although I appreciate the trap is at a cellular level, I had just thought cells would fall prey to it wholesale, rather than maybe being selectively affected. For me that is a profound insight. I wonder if for some...

Looking at those tweets of his, and the language he is using to people, he comes across as incredibly unprofessional, and downright nasty. So very different to the kind and caring face he presents on TV. I'd have thought such TV contracts could be duly reconsidered. No matter whether a doctor is...