Search results

Especially arbitrary scales. Neither of HADS, SF-36 or CFQ are of much relevance to ME, in combination or in isolation. Their choice is nothing more than a matter of preference, they are not validated or adequate for this purpose, especially when objective measures are possible, like working...

They simply have no idea what they're talking about. Somehow that's waived off, as if they could not possibly be mistaken but that is the core issue here, they are completely out of their depth and insist it is the patients who are confused about our own illness, that it's reality that is wrong...

Well, it is an attack on the credibility of science. Imagine if this dumbing down spread through all of medicine. It's a genuine slippery slope that could end up downgrading the value and effectiveness of all medical practice, including "respectable" diseases.

This is what will hurt them in the long term. Arbitrary decisions are exactly what science, even the evidence-based kind, is exactly all about not being. Something we've also seen in the recent paper about the "effectiveness" of CBT/GET in "fatigue clinics", that there is no standard, quality...

Petulant is definitely a proper term to apply here. Not a good look. It shows a level of unprofessionalism that is simply unacceptable in medicine. They are clearly incapable of the responsibility that is required and should never work unsupervised, or ideally at all.

Uuhhhh. Right. That makes as much sense as the Kochs center for the study of renewable energy or the Derek Zoolander for children who can't read good and wanna do other stuff good to. Echoes of Sharpe arguing about morals: to any debate, even about morals and ethics, someone will argue against...

That last sentence by Tovey is clear-headed and shows he understands that not only this is indefensible but that it always was and should never have been published, that the recommendations made in the review do not stem from reliable evidence but rather what its authors want to be true despite...

I guess that's what the "collaboration" part is. Cochrane makes editorial decisions but not unilaterally. Unfortunately the execution is completely broken.

Too bad he maybe did the very least in the circumstances and won't be deserving of any credit while being subjected to harsh criticism and howling by the ideological brigade. It's pretty obvious he would be vindicated with time if he took meaningful steps. Or maybe he did and we'll know later...