Search results

Dr Shepherd posted the following on Facebook yesterday: NB: The first part of my letter, which was concentrating on the conflicts of interest by some of the clinicians and researchers who authored this paper, has not been published. People with ME/CFS welcome the recommendations in the NICE...

I saw a list of criteria that require postexertional malaise. Another one is Rowe et al 2017 drawn up by an international panel of experts:

Nothing that new in this short video (Aside: he again seems to struggle to say “myalgic encephalomyelitis”.

Because the PACE Trial had already been going a long time at that stage (it got funding in May 2003). Also the trial cost in the region of £5 million.

The PACE Trial used the Oxford criteria. Yet 97% of the participants who didn't have a psychiatric disorder satisfied the definition of M.E. used (see post from 2011 below). This is not very credible. It either shows that the London ME criteria are not good or alternatively that they were...

A different Peter White has explained in this thread how there was a post-exertional symptom requirement in the 2007 NICE guidelines, that that is not a new requirement:

Hopefully there will be lots of e-letters picking the commentary apart. Some of the authors might feel some embarrassment for trusting Peter White and being a co-author of the piece. People could send in more than one as I have done with e-letters in the past.

I recall independent researchers such as Nick (?) Brown being turned down. I posted about it on I think the main PACE Trial thread (or one of them). Huge hurdles were put in their way.

It’s should be fairly self-evident that a document which just had ME in the title would have even more doctors reacting like this. Some “ME only” advocates either don’t seem to recognise this or at least don’t mention it when discussing the pros and cons of using ME/CFS vs ME in educational...

Probably this one: https://wellcome.org/press-release/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-not-caused-xmrv-virus-study-shows Chronic fatigue syndrome not caused by XMRV virus, study shows

The commentary has now disappeared for me

Over the years, the BMJ have been good at posting e-letters from ME patients and the like (i.e. non professionals). Before social media there would often be lots and lots of comments. Best to avoid ad hominems and the like.

Looks like you can sign up to write such notes on Twitter

Part funded the PACE Trial

Knoop and colleagues have also been doing something similar in the Netherlands.

Thanks to whoever wrote it. Hopefully it will get posted on the journal website but it does contain some pointed comments/language that I doubt would make it into print in a published paper. Regarding this: Is it essentially the same as “activity management” in the 2007 guidelines? I don’t...

There was this new post today. In terms of ME Association comment, it just contains the Dr Shepherd comment that appeared in some media articles: The ME Association and NICE robustly defend the clinical recommendations for managing ME/CFS - The ME Association...

Sport! I vaguely recall reading that some drugs aren’t passed by regulators because although they might be safe if used exactly as recommended, they are dangerous if used in other ways. Similarly even if something like GET was safe if done correctly (which I don’t believe), it isn’t always...

I haven’t investigated this From: Dr. Marc-Alexander Fluks WebTV [In Dutch] https://www.npostart.nl/op1/11-07-2023/POW_05684648 With Covid-virologist Marc van Ranst from Belgium stating that CFS/FM-quacks are also Post-Covid quacks [0:42:40] WebRadio [In Dutch]...

In a big trial or study, I think it could be justified if lots of people who worked on the trial or study itself could be listed as co-authors. But that’s not the case here: many of these people probably had zero input or at most a few words.