Search results

Hard to prove a negative. They tested their theory, and failed to find support for it.... but why give up on it just because of that!!

There are so many good and important comments made criticising junk CFS papers on pubmed commons.... not seen a single researcher respond to them.

Abstract sounds sensible... thus removing my drive to read the paper!

This is what they say about possible trustees, if anyone here thinks that they may have time to get involved:

Thanks - I remember cringing at this bit when I first read it years ago. I'd love to pick his brain on LP!

I wasn't planning to post this, and was only skimming through, but was blown away by the combination of confidence and low quality evidence in this new piece and thought it could be of interest to others (@Woolie ?). http://pn.bmj.com.sci-hub.tw/content/early/2017/12/09/practneurol-2017-001809

The science media centre has played an important role in stigmatising CFS patients, and anyone critical of PACE and related work, so it's always interesting to look at how they present themselves. Someone sent me this old report recently, and while it's not that interesting or relevant to us, I...

It seems so unlikely to me that there will ever be a single diagnostic test for 'CFS'... but then, maybe something like this could be a common feature? Not much info in that article on the work.

I think that a lot of the people mentioned in that article also signed the open letter rasiing concern about Wessely/PACE/etc: https://www.thecanary.co/discovery/2017/10/18/dozens-leading-professionals-just-slammed-theresa-mays-controversial-new-mental-health-guru-letter/

While they cut benefits and push people into poverty it has become useful for the government to pretend that they're a world leader at empowering people to move away from a culture of dependency on benefits, regardless of the truth of the matter.

The accompanying piece is very pleased with itself over IAPT's collection of subjective self-report outcomes to assess efficacy. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(17)32133-5/fulltext Their criteria for reliable recovery doesn't sound that reliable: So someone...

Sounds like that's you... congratulations on the new name!

Thanks. Only looked at the abstract: "superior to placebo in counteracting fatigue in a subgroup of ME patients who received concomitant pharmacological treatment for depression." - Could just be a chance finding? Or maybe it's helpful for counter-acting a side effect of anti-depressants? Or...

Sometimes these things do just disappear without a trace on social media. It could be only a few people even saw it. Thanks for posting, but best not to take to lack of response personally.

Always worth pointing out problems/errors imo, regardless of what causes them. It's not like you were being remotely cruel about it!

Yes, I share that concern. It did feel like a film made by someone who had not been ill that long, so was lacking some justified cynicism. I suspect that's part of the reason why the film was able to make some sort of emotional connection with a wider audience though? I worry that this element...

Interesting. I don't really know enough about the Australian situation to comment. I think Cochrane have been shit though. I can't believe that they've still not corrected the already published Larun review, and are now doing a new one from Larun, co-authoring with White, Chalder, Wearden, etc.

Top 15... that's something that would get people interested in documentaries to watch it even if they wouldn't be drawn to it otherwise. Congratulations to all involved.

Split from here. While posting related papers, I'm afraid I just saw this Moss-Morris review was recently given a prize place on wikipedia's CFS entry: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28712416

From Tuller's blog: http://www.virology.ws/2017/08/28/trial-by-error-no-ethical-review-of-crawley-school-absence-study/ The Department of Education's response to Mar: