Search results

This is seriously insulting. Dismissing feedback from the patient community is the main reason why this psychosocial research is so lousy. They basically admit to cherry-pick what feedback they want and only want feedback that curiously happens to align with claims that they have made for years...

It's still clearly a button soup. Nevermind the meat, and the veggies, and the broth, and the spices, and the herbs. Which we initially did not report in the ingredients' list and denied were ever present. The main ingredient is clearly the button. You can't deny there is a button in this soup...

There's always a bit of white/pink noise when noise cancelling is on so it probably just drowns it out a bit. I recently bought an air purifier and the background noise it generates also helps on that. When the tinnitus is low anyway. Mine is barely perceptible unless the room is wery, wery...

I guess that's one of the lessons from the first release of PACE data: it made almost no difference to have their BS exposed. If inflating the efficacy of their treatment 6x and basically cherry-picking the outcome they wanted had little impact, it's probably a safe bet that it will make little...

Those are entirely irrelevant so it's a false controversy. The existence of deniers is not a controversy in itself, it's their involvement that is. Why pay attention to people who have no stake or relevant skills and whose interests are entirely self-serving? There will always be people who...

Then leave. Let people who know what they're doing and are actually motivated at doing something useful. What's even the point of having people like that involved? They're clearly not up to the task and have no intention of learning anything. No one's holding them there. They're clearly...

I can't remember seeing it posted here but this graphic speaks at least 10,000 words. The whole thread in which it was published is awesome but Twitter is down at the moment so can't post.

Good but too close to MEGA? Can't really remember what MEGA was about though.

Odds of the paper being retracted instead of having to share the data? 2:1? Can they do that, take their ball and go home instead of complying with something that will be highly damaging?

This is pathetic. How is any of this seriously worth damaging BMJ's reputation like this? I know they expect no consequences for it but inevitably there will be. This would never be tolerated in a non-controversial disease and once the veil of controversy is lifted there will be hard questions...

Read the minutes and all I can think of is: Just fire the whole lot and let representatives from the patient community take over along with selected experts. This is performative BS.

It all comes down to falsifiability. Those diagnoses cannot be falsified, they depend on personal judgment and those are prone to bias and all sorts of influencing factors. Even worse with the trauma thing, since everyone reacts differently to it and there is no standard method of assessment...

Uh. Interesting! His Twitter bio: I can't wait until the people who want to tackle the toughest challenges understand this is one of the most interesting ones. So much potential to discover entire new areas of medicine. There's definitely a Nobel prize somewhere in the pipeline once we crack...

Of course. But I don't think this factors in their calculations. This is either someone else's problem or a sacrifice they are willing to make. Anyway the economic losses massively outweigh the meagre benefits but that's a separate account so it doesn't factor in those decisions either...

I figured there would be more chances of a response here than on Twitter. More specifically he's looking at who already went to the trouble of storing samples. Does the UK biobank go there? I watched Michael's presentation at the Harvard symposium yesterday. I think he's looking in a very...

And it's weird that this is presented as a good thing. It's not. Not even close. Especially for something as meaningless as "more activities". So patronizing. We're not f-ing children who need to do "more activities" FFS, many of us can't even cook a meal. We need to work and function like...

I would think that being the largest effort of its kind, the IOM report would likely be the most accurate. Which does not mean it is entirely accurate but likely the most. There is consistency around those numbers as well so if they are off it's likely to not be by much in %.

Copied post I would think that being the largest effort of its kind, the IOM report would likely be the most accurate. Which does not mean it is entirely accurate but likely the most. There is consistency around those numbers as well so if they are off it's likely to not be by much in %.

If MUS is a psychological diagnosis, rather than medical, then the patient population experiencing the worst delays completely disappears. If you stop counting failures, you can claim a lot of success. So MUS patients are not experiencing serious illness, instead they are experiencing serious...

I would say this is in fact the main cause. It makes as much sense to treat ME with a psychosocial model as it makes to treat a fungal infection with antibiotics. The outcome is entirely predictable and largely a problem of classification. Though it definitely is wildly ironic. But the outcome...