Search results

https://sciencenorway.no/covid19-journalism-opinion/poor-studies-on-long-covid-are-sensationalized-by-the-media/1901927

It's the classic journalist approach - they don't assess truth, they simply interview people and report what they say. The mistake is assuming the opinions of experts is relevant when the quality of the evidence is poor.

I cannot see such a review at bokus.com, for Trött hela livet : Sjukdomen ME, it seems the review has been taken down?

That seems like a rather nasty and condescending thing to say...

It has always been about "do as I say, not as I do". His point is valid, long-covid needs to be studied with rigour and vigour. I just wish someone bothered to do a large prospective community based study that covered a healthy cohort BEFORE they got COVID.

Another key finding buried in the text: Which rules out HPA axis related hypotheses. Also:

The idea that the vaccine is curing LongCovid in many patients seems to be rather spurious at the moment. It's unfortunate that researchers like Akiko are just tossing out unfounded claims.

I have already given the review of existing questionnaires a lot of thought and to avoid a Tu quoque trap, I'd first design a survey to review existing questionnaires using qualitative interview methods - asking participants what they think, designing a survey on how to assess the...

Yes, in my opinion, his survey itself is inappropriately designed. He is perpetuating the bias that reliability is based on quantitative measurements of questionnaires - but this means that a lot of information is simply lost. The survey also doesn't even bother to attempt to measure the...

That is an interesting observation. It is likely because it is an experimental treatment that a lot of people are working on.

Note that this study didn't utilise any healthy or non-ME/CFS control groups, so none of the findings are generalisable as biomarkers. I still find the hypothesis really intriguing, but we are going to need more evidence... This is a good point. There weren't really any major differences...

I should have clarified, I was speaking about the DSP. The NDIS is it's own disaster, you are right, the diagnosis does matter there because they have an arbitrary list of valid conditions.

Isn't this just evidence of increased response bias associated with those factors? Too many researchers assume that symptoms as reported on a scale is the same as an experienced symptom. They are not the same and they never have been. Scales place one or more levels of abstraction between an...

In Australia, the measure of impairment isn't based on the diagnosis anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

Impaired capillary microcirculation is a central part of one of my primary hypotheses. The suggestion of a ß2-adrenergic receptor autoantibody association is curious. See also https://adisinsight.springer.com/drugs/800047946 (they mention CFS as well) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04192214

"Without ......., there is nothing" works on so many levels!

This is a really excellent point, and I'm saving your post for later reference! :)

Overall this suggests that the often-quoted/suggested high recovery rate in children must be in the first year or so, before they are referred to tertiary care.

That link is paywalled for me... https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/how-we-could-turn-covid-against-itself/ In vitro research is a long way from clinical application...

My point isn't whether patients will say that, but the response from the medical practitioner as a result. If you say "ME is a physical illness" then they often respond with the whole stigma-against-mental-illness/mental-illnesses-are-real/illnesses-involve-both-mind-and-body reflex.