Search results

That seems very backwards to me. I might be too foggy to understand this now, but I still don’t get it. If you have a group of people with CF, and you don’t know if they have PEM or not, how can the results be generalized to everyone with PEM? You can’t prove that anyone had PEM, and you can’t...

No, I did not catch the «something» part.

I slept with a device to exclude sleep apnea. My spO2 was 94 % on my Venu 2 Plus, but the external measurements were fine. The doc said it was normal in all people.

@Hutan I agree that methodology is the core issues. But it should also be noted that when you don’t differentiate based on PEM, all of the responders could have been the non-PEM patients. In itself, that makes the studies non-generalizable to ME/CFS with PEM. If they fix their methodology...

I might have misheard things, but here’s a brief summary. He starts by asking the attendees what they know about CFS. Someone said «lethargy» and another person didn’t think there was much difference between Neurasthenia and CFS. He did suspect that the latter was more acceptable among...

@ME/CFS Skeptic for reference: https://mecfsskeptic.com/a-rebuttal-of-flottorp-et-al-new-nice-guideline-on-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-more-ideology-than-science/

Why not? Power and money are potent motivators.

I doesn’t surprise me.

It’s like how lawyers or auditors oversee eachother.

I learned about it at VGS (upper secondary/high school). Might have been my statistics teacher that was very into methodology.

Which means that the choice of criteria is relevant because of the possibility of studying a non-generalizable selection of the CF population. The other methdological flaws are more than enough to disquslify the studies, but the criteria are still relevant.

I don’t understand this. If the narrow population (NP) is such that the entire population fits inside the wider population (WP), then it’s still possible that a study on the WP doesn’t include any patients from the NP. If you study only men, you can’t say that the results also apply to women...

If these findings are replicated, it means that every ME study on POTS has to account for the origin of the ME. Which is going to be very challenging because we’ve stopped testing..

A lot of people simply don’t understand the concept of scientific methodology. They believe that an opinion has the same value as evidence. This is something I frequently argue with my family about. If I say that a study they read about in the news is nonsense (95 % are BPS), they almost get...

I would argue that the most plausible explanation of this study is that people with asthma are terrible at rating their asthma in a blinded study environment. Asthma is an objectively measureable phenomenon, so any perceived benefit is irrelevant if they don’t improve the underlying condition...

I can’t help but think that these questions should have been handled by the various associations a long time ago. I’m baffled by how uncoordinated and ineffective they appear to be, from the vantage point of a passive bystander. It seems like they are mostly reactive instead of proactive. As...

HC had almost 50 % higher activity level compared to DC if you go by step count. They need at least activity matched HCs to say anything meaningfull.

Yeah, but what’s that? How on earth do you prove that something is cause by gut-brain interaction? That’s why I thought of FND.

They are openly asking people how much they can get away with. Quite dystopian..

What’s DGBI? It sounds as vague and scope creepy as FND.