Search results

I remember people being concerned that this paper rather over-stated the case on some of the issues with ME/CFS. I've had some interactions with Gerwyn Morris that left me less than impressed in the past.

I always get nervous with these sorts of things, as I just don't know how the politics will play out. On just the facts, it seems like this should be a simple case... but the facts often don't seem to matter as much as they should. Thanks once again to Tuller and Racaniello.

These three papers might be of interest. From what I remember the evidence in all of them ends up challenging the boom-bust narrative. To me, the boom-bust story seems like just a BS myth used for spinning PEM into a justification for CBT/GET. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20943713...

With a lot of these preliminary studies, I'd 'discount' them to the extent of thinking that they are not strong enough to alter how I think of the issues around ME/CFS, while still staying open to the possibility that they may lead on to work that identified sub-groups, or things of real value...

Also, when so much around ME/CFS seems so tentative, it's worth staying open to evidence that doesn't seem to fit with it. At this stage I'd find it very difficult to make any guess as to which research groups with which ideas are most likely to turn up a substantial breakthrough.

I could be wrong, and I think these are them (so much info is coming out recently I can tell I'm getting a bit lost in it): https://www.s4me.info/threads/statements-on-conflict-of-interest-of-pace-trial-tsc.3189/ This stuff also helps explain why APT is this weird version of pacing that...

I also have a concern that recent changes mean that many of those who most understand and appreciate the importance of Tuller's work are now less visible to those with a more casual interest. At the same time, a lot has happened over the last year to draw attention to the problems with PACE and...

I didn't see people discouraging discussion. Sometimes headlines can seem over-hyped in a way that encourages a more cynical 'here-we-go-again' response, and there probably is a desire to avoid a cycle of over-excitement and disappointment that can follow results from small studies. I'm sure...

$18,915 25% The time limit on this seems unreasonably tight! I'm e-mailing family members today.

I'm not convinced ICC or CCC are that great either, so tend to not get too concerned in disputes about the criteria used. IMO it really depends on the specifics of the research being done. There is a danger that focussing on a restrictive criteria prematurely could make it harder to identify...

Ugh - I misread your post. I've done that a few times recently. I had anyway been thinking about drawing attention to those earlier releases, and seeing if they included info censroed from the new release.

In the above there was also this bit referring to "the TMGs struggle to find an objective outcome measure as requested by the TSC at their last meeting". It would be good to find the details of the discussions referred to, but I expect that the minutes don't include them.

There was this on the "MEA campaign to stop PACE and FINE":

Part 2 of the above minutes.

(This set of minutes needed to be split over two posts itself - part 1)

I don't, but I know these TSC minutes were previously released, so it could have been referring to these? [two sets of minutes posted in three posts]:

I'd have thought so. Anyone know if the complaint leads to a real investigation, where further evidence can be submitted, responses can be responded to, etc?

I don't remember hearing of this. Website here: http://www.euromene.eu/coastaction.html

That's just how the Establishment works. John Scarlett (Former Chief, British Secret Intelligence Service) is listed as one of the Swiss Re advisors: http://institute.swissre.com/about/advisors/ Says: "He is a Director of Times Newspaper Holdings" We still got the Whipple article. I think...

Worth remembering Bentall was involved with FINE, and has done the usual 'terrorist anti-psych patients' jokes.