Search results

The title is framed as if this were 100% validated as a result of solid research. Complete fail by the BBC.

Very much so. That is my take as well. It's two fields loaded with uncertainty. To make such strong assertions is out of line. Especially as we know the kind of people the SMC consider to be experts are far from it. The SMC is quite willing to ignore such expert panels when it does not promote...

That's a lot of staff. I can't say I could think of a single useful thing to have come out of it. Maybe it's on count of the distance that I can't see it from far away, but I can see it in other organizations, some much smaller or even without any staff.

Yes. The author is clearly very confused. As usual the question is why the hell is clueless nonsense like this published in the first place? How is that there are seemingly no standards whatsoever in medical publishing?

Good idea. BTW the link seems to have changed, remove the "-2" to get the correct page.

Wessely's quotes: "Dramatic breakthrough" it was not. I wonder how similar Sharpe's current research is to that, seems to borrow from the same mindset. Either you believe or you don't. Says it all. Science is not something you believe in or not. It's literally the WHOLE POINT of science, to...

That is one mess of a confused article. Editorial standards? Who needs that?

I'm not entirely sure if Sharpe's concern is over the fraud or rather over him being exposed as a fraud and how unfair it is to "science", something he should expect sometime in the future for basically the same reason. I'm going with the 2nd one. They are ideological cousins, after all.

That seems to come up a lot. The presence of bacteria in the blood after exercise is hard to explain otherwise, they have to come from somewhere. I assume this would lead to a low-level sepsis response. Normally, inflammation dilates blood vessels, right? But there seems to be something about...

It did? I usually avoid this sub, it's so damn depressing how hateful it can be towards us. Baby steps...

When you put it that way... yikes. To think that the entire British medical establishment is on the wrong side of this extremely easy ethical choice really emphasizes how absurd and unsustainable this situation is. What a stupid idea to give the LP a shot in a real trial, it only made it evident...

Wow. That is a complete mess, i.e. the usual. Who the hell approves this nonsense in the first place? It's almost impossible to select things that are wrong with it because it's basically most of it. It "compares" online CBT-GET by doing it online first, then face-to-face. No objective outcomes...

And had a null result. I don't understand why it's even in there. Likely because of how it was used as a base to generate the GP training and it would look bad. Anyway it's as uninterpretable as the rest.

That title will not last very long.

Another weird paper that argues more BPS would be useful because reasons. Essentially boils down to "we can't explain their problems" with some woo about gut-brain and the existence of eating disorders, therefore emotions may play some role. I'm not even sure there's actually a point being...

Hard to argue with that. Not the pan, the fire instead. No one is being helped other than for politics.

This is absurd considering those trials are only possible for patients who have the capacity to participate in the first place, heavily skewed towards the less disabled. The ceiling effect seems so severe it essentially maxes out for at least half of ME patients, if not more. Didn't realize how...

Just shows how confused the whole thing is. According to Cochrane's language guide, low evidence uses may while moderate evidence uses probably. Here he uses may while arguing for moderate evidence of "benefit", whatever that benefit may be is not at all described in any meaningful way. Still...

I mean that the simple act of saying we are looking forward to working with patient organizations is saying that we will be holding this promise to account. The note promised a radical departure from what was done up to now and we will be watching that this note is not an empty promise.

I unfortunately cannot trust anything that receives a seal of approval from the SMC on such controversial topics. Zero credibility to the point where I would put more trust in the opposite of whatever they deem fit to do a PR blitz. It's very likely that some people with ME, or other diseases...