Search results

The Help Clinic must be making huge amounts of money. I don't know if the people running it believe in what they are doing or not. I don't even know for sure if what they are doing has any basis, although I seriously doubt it. For those of us who wouldn't dream of charging desperate sick people...

Indeed, you nailed it @rvallee.

A shout out to the person from Latvia who signed the petition recently - bringing the total number of countries that we have signatories from to 72. That does include some very small entities that I'm not entirely sure qualify as countries, but the Change.org data analysis tool separates them...

Wonderful, Mike. 47 people in Switzerland have signed the petition which is pretty good. We'd love to have a Swiss organisation join the campaign. It would be great if someone there wanted to give us updates on their activities in the News from Switzerland thread from time to time too. I...

I think what they have done is as fine an example of desperate cherry picking as you will see. Bear with me as I try to explain. PSC is the primary outcome - the three activities chosen by the participant as being important to them and impacted on by their health condition. Table 2 gives the...

I note in the waterfall diagram that one of the people allocated to the treatment is shows as 'deceased'. That raises the issue of harm. The word 'harm' does not occur in the paper, and the methods section includes nothing about monitoring harm. and yet this sort of treatment has the...

I thought this was interesting - each patient identifying activities where they experience limitations, and then reporting how much limitation they experience. I don't have a problem with it, as far as subjective measures go. Wow. These people don't seem to have a problem in saying out loud...

Good grief, there truly is a community for everybody. And it appears there might be 35 of them (one also provided training to the 34 who did the therapy).

I can picture authors and others of their ilk mentally making note - 'must do better with screening people who enter the trials to ensure only people who will believe are included'. As it was, one of the exclusions was 'psychosomatic therapy not suitable for the patient, according to the GP'...

Authors and institutions: I think it's important to note who these people are who can write highlights that both include an acknowledgement that their treatment did not work for a set of conditions while simultaneously saying that their treatment is important for improving the conditions.

Unfortunately for the relevance of this 2014 study, there is now RoB2 https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials#:~:text=Version%202%20of%20the%20Cochrane,design%2C%20conduct%2C%20and%20reporting. So, it's really easy for a Cochrane...

Just looking at the Cochrane Norway website, I note that they are still saying that wearing masks make little to no difference: https://www.cochrane.no/news

Wonderful, RME Skåne is supporting the open letter. Thank you! 50 organisations.

Are the UK offices of Cochrane the only target with respect to challenging their actions as a charity? Is there scope to query the Norwegian branch's performance as a charity? Or another branch? Is that up to date, I forget which university was to be their new home. Perhaps we can make...

Sadly, I think a lot of Cochrane's operations are beyond the reach of FOI requests. Yes, simply informing people in Cochrane of what to us is an appalling situation, even when bolstered by nearly 50 ME/CFS organisations saying 'this really is a problem', does not seem to be getting us very far...

You mean those diverse scavenging bottom-dwellers that eventually got overtaken by reality?

It's interesting to read what was planned for the new review and consider how it all went so wrong. Including how Cochrane now seem to be saying 'it's not our review process'. The message was that the 2019 review was not fit for purpose, and a new review would be in place by early 2022, with...

Sounds like a recipe for the physician never being wrong, and providing scope for prejudices to run unrestrained. 'Sure, that person recovered with biomedical treatment, but that doesn't mean that psychological therapy isn't the right treatment for someone else with the same disease.' Bad luck...

'Randomised clinical trial' is a nonsense term. The 'c' is supposed to be controlled - as far as I know, medicine is the only area where the 'controlled' sidles off to be replaced with a word that really tells us nothing more than what the title of the study should. A 'randomised controlled...

Or perhaps anyone who knows anything about this is busy with mask issues or trying to find some funding or something. And so the office intern, who knows nothing and doesn't care, was told to 'write something'. Either way, we do get to the same point. But yes, we aren't going anywhere. And...