Search results

Any study that concludes this is flawed beyond repair. It is one of the most common complaints and one of the most severe. It is by far the most impactful thing for me and has preceded any significant fatigue by years. Even if I just shambled on a broken body but still had my cognitive faculties...

I did not experience significant fatigue until years into. Or, well, I did but it was ordinary fatigue, the kind that is easy to brush off and has nothing to do with the flu-like heavy crushing "fatigue" of flu-like symptoms. We can't even have the most basic definitions right. Not sure if this...

It seems they have only taken the researchers' word at it. We know of several people who requested the data and were just told it was "vexatious", which is about as big a tell as it gets that the data contradicts their claims. I don't know how big of a commitment it would be to ask them to come...

Oh, that is a good find. I'm sure it's totally normal that a neutral science communications "charity" would do a coordinated PR push with the authors of a controversial paper. I found it odd that the SMC tweet was so mangled. 10:1 Sharpe wrote it himself. His mastery of language is about as...

So odd that all who "retired" from this research seem to continue publishing unhindered, promoting their own work with direct access to the news media and with friendly ears all over the medical institutions propping up their lousy research. Might be interesting to check if White is still doing...

Chalder and White literally registered a company to benefit from this research. It seems that they didn't do much with it but come on, this sham investigation was weak even by the standards we expect.

Speaking of Levin's presentation, the PDF has been taken down from the university's website. I have used the link several times (that are now dead) and it's a pretty good asset to show. Is there any way you can contact someone to get it back up? This was the link...

Far from vindicating, it doesn't even clear it. Most of it seems to be outside of their remit, largely it seems because no one thought any researcher would be so brazen as to just not care about legitimate criticism and just stamp their feet about it being the perfect work of angels, beyond all...

And actimetry, the only objective measure in the whole trial, was removed once they learned that a Dutch trial had shown null results. You know, I'm sensing some kind of pattern here that makes me think maybe these people are not on the up and up.

The AI part of the study is completely irrelevant here. It just gives an air of serious mathemagic for what is basically trying to find correlations and passing them as causations. Machine learning is a tough skill to master and is highly dependent on decisions made. I cannot program anymore...

Great example of sunk cost and escalation of commitment, trying evermore people to the failure of this fake research, giving them motivation to help defend it. Now any trial criticized for changing their success criteria in order to achieve a more positive outcome can cite this judgment...

Just because this tripe is likely to be removed with embarrassment in the future, might as well preserve this "thing of beauty" for posterity. The Atlas thing on the "machine learning" is complete garbage as well. It shows that symptoms follow severity (duh) but decides that this is evidence...

Pseudoscientific horseshit of the highest order. These idiots have lost their minds and need to be kept as far away as possible from sick people. Uh, so the NHS is fine with just making stuff up like that? This claim has all the evidence base of a rancid fart. Uh, uh. Pain, nausea, "fatigue"...

You just have to laugh at the fact that they cite NICE recommending the "treatments" as independent validation of the promise they held at the time when of course this recommendation came from their own work and Wessely's influence. Literally pointing at their own recommendation as evidence...

Well, they have. It's just that every response is "we refuse the premise of this specific criticism and all criticism of our work is wrong" and that's the end of that. And somehow the editors all basically adopt the "don't ask me, I just work here and they say it's fine" approach, which is kinda...

I have appropriately adapted my signature to reflect this commendation, which I accept with pride and... pizza.

Well, in all fairness to those abusing this tactic: it works. Until it doesn't. And then it backfires spectacularly because of this nice, long public record that exposes the emperor's tiny... failure. It's the cover-up that gets you. It's always the cover-up.

False illness beliefs. Oh, how the turntables. (Sorry UK folks but my Office is this Office :p)

Whether medical professionals like it or not, medicine is a customer service profession and it should act accordingly. It's very difficult to give feedback within health care systems that are not an official complaint, they are unlikely to ever be handled appropriately. I saw a thread on Reddit...

Oh, it's possible. It would just be excessive and bizarre, reeking of political pressure.