Search results

First of all a disclaimer: These are just my thoughts on this, as was my original post. I'm not clued up enough to know for sure if what I'm saying is on the ball. More intended as food for thought and others to maybe discuss as well. I think MS is saying that they measured various different...

Which itself poses the question, why would you be thinking to explore different ways of defining recovery post hoc? Not, surely, to "best fit" with the results you were hoping to get but didn't?

[My bold] MS is saying here that the individual dimensions (that get aggregated to arrive at a recovery measure) are not individually critical for a definition of recovery, but that it is effectively the resulting 'vector' of those aggregated dimensions that matters. So even if individual...

Interesting he uses the word "explored". It may have been an exploration to him, but that exploration has greatly impacted medical thinking and PwME for a good while now. If all the recovery paper did was to "explore" different ways of defining recovery, why was it not made clear at the time it...

Having read the whole thing, I think what he's saying is that the questions are not being asked out of curiosity, but for another reason. So he shut up.

Maybe they are egging him on, in the hope if one falls out the lifeboat the rest might be able to stay in.

You may have 'failed' to get a sane answer out of him Trish, but you actually succeeded in getting him to demonstrate yet more of his mind games, which I strongly suspect his response was, and most are. It comes across as word salad, which to me suggests your question hit the spot and he didn't...

Doesn't matter. With each step he takes ...

As others have indicated, I think that "Primary psychiatric disorders, somatoform disorder and substance abuse are excluded" is saying that when considering an ME diagnosis, then isolate that diagnosis from any other primary conditions that have already been diagnosed, and home in on the...

Perhaps they are finally developing a sense of perspective.

I think if there were a competition for what is the most abused word in science, my vote would be "evidence".

Whatever was written there would likely be something we felt not quite right. In many ways it is more the process that is important.

I contacted mine, but as always is proving highly immune to to my efforts.

No, no assumptions needed at all. PACE is its own proof. It's clear MS 'engages' in this because for him it is a macabre infantile game. He clearly doesn't give a flying f*ck for the detrimental effects his bloody trial has actually had for PwME the world over. One day when this eventually comes...

I wasn't really saying they quoted it that way, but as a statement how far wrong is it?

He's right, but misleadingly so. PACE assumed people had a physical disabillity (deconditioning) entirely recoverable from if people could be fixed psychologically. So the point about PACE and BSP'ism for PwME, is not that the condition is assumed to be entirely psychological, but that recovery...

What I don't get is how a bunch of supposed scientists can supposedly "test" a theory by only acknowledging results that (very weakly, given bad trial methodology) support that theory, and disregard everything else. Surely the whole point of real research is to try and disprove your own theory...

OK, so ask how PACE proved that CFS is a subjective condition, not an objective one.

MS insists ME/CFS self-report measures are adequate "because that is how the illness is defined". Can he clarify how it is that an illness which so impacts people's real/actual (i.e. not perceived) physical capabilities, can be defined to take no account of that.

There are 650 MPs total, so 80 is 12.3%. I wonder what % it will take before my MP decides it will be safe to jump on board?