Search results

I guess I misunderstand what specificity means. I was thinking it meant unique discrimination of a given disease, full stop.

Maybe the meaning of specificity is being abused somewhat? Just saying it distinguished extremely well between pwME and the other people tested ... i.e. the healthy controls.

Interesting observation.

Since I've joined S4ME and picked up snippets of human biology, I get the distinct impression the human body is a phenomenal, never ending war zone at the microscopic scale, and that we have evolved to be incredibly successful at winning most of the battles ... else we would not be around.

This is significant isn't it? Saying there was an increase at the 2nd CPET for pwME compared to the 1st, whereas for controls it dropped.

This is what I was sort of asking: https://www.s4me.info/threads/concerns-about-craniocervical-instability-surgery-in-me-cfs.9638/page-12#post-171874

T'was what I meant really ;).

When you actually read that question, and consider EC's non-answer, it is very clear how this strategy is second-nature to these critique-deflecting scientists. In just the same way as they claim to respond to criticisms, whilst conveniently overlooking they fail to answer them ... that is...

There may not be. As @Trish says, there will likely be other individual(s) privacy concerns to consider.

Invariably seems to be a spooky glitch in the system where the BPS crowd are concerned that somehow delays their responses, or people being able to respond to them.

And who can ever take what EC says at face value, or whether it was said just for rhetorical effect so it sounded all the more impressive that LP (supposedly) did work. When it comes to sleight of word and presentation, I would not take anything for granted.

Excellent letters @Jonathan Edwards and @dave30th. I really am interested to hear how UoB might seek to still justify endorsing a treatment for children which they are instructed to remain silent about, and which there are no published details of. Continuing support after this has be so clearly...

Excellent thank you @Jonathan Edwards. I especially like the 'zero' slide. Epitomising how so little can say so much! My wife and I were walking out in the countryside with our dog today. We don't get that far from the car, and we walk quite slowly, but get far enough to forget it's there for a...

It's akin to a form of corporate-driven gaslighting. Deliberate Machiavellian manipulations to skew the public's perceptions of reality. And as you say @SallyC, it's the self-serving mechanisms being employed that is the key concern. Though with my pretty tarnished view on human nature, I would...

It would be fine if the article focused on the authors' own moral paradox.

Replying to @MedHums_BMJ Perhaps the best you can say for Sharpe's work is that it's "well-written". It's not well-reasoned; it's not ethical. 4 replies .0 retweets30 likes Paul Fox‏ @Rocket_Snail May 29 Well written? Surely, only newcomers to English can be excused for writing "... In...

Of the best kind :D. Absolutely.

Presumably the decision should not take too long in the making (absolute maximum one week I would have thought?), and will be whether to allow the revised review to supersede the current one, or to pull the plug on it. Given how impossible it would seem for the authors to meet the 'defensible'...

S4ME is not going to be for everyone. I have huge respect and admiration for @JenB for what she has achieved for pwME, and the guts and tenacity she constantly demonstrates in doing so. But S4ME may not be Jen's thing, and if so then better we just accept that and move on. Is how I see it.