Search results

Dr Anibran Gupta a quick google this seems to be the service he has been with: Pioneering post COVID service helps southwest Londoner get life back on track :: Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust (clch.nhs.uk)

Dr Harsha Master (GP) video on the long covid service she is involved with: Long covid service needs and development: Community - Dr Harsha Master (youtube.com) I haven't watched it in full yet.

Jayne Woodcock (psychologist) seems to be in the following thread: United Kingdom: News from BACME - British Association of Clinicians in ME/CFS | Page 3 | Science for ME (s4me.info) offering compassion-focused therapy at that event

Just looking these up. A few seem to be based in Leeds. I assume Sivan is the same person involved in this: Latest news from Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust (leedsth.nhs.uk) ?

There is a big and important underlying question too: Would any of those who had been harmed and were at the brunt end of all of this feel safe thinking 'yes I'll just send back a questionnaire to Crawley and those who treated me saying how I didn't enjoy it and it harmed me' ? In essence this...

and you have people who are really interested in their area being landed with 'the other bit' and all the ring-fenced funding (if that ever happened) doesn't tend to fix that lack of interest (because different specialisms look and use different methods to look into things). If you wanted to do...

why the note about adding in those with ME/CFS then? seems like mission-creep if they wanted to claim that. I don't know what others' initial musings are on whether it is safer to have a Chinese wall between those who deal with the respiratory-side and develop some new expertise in the ME/CFS...

"we'll 'deal with them' for you" is pretty different to 'how can we develop expertise to better the lives of those unlucky enough to be hit by this', certainly in audience and therefore tone based on who said target audience is intended as

The order of those priorities, if read with suitable cynism, says it all really as far as priorities and who they serve go. Reads too much like the manifesto-type papers we see where deciding what you want to 'get', then 'offer' from a supply-led perspective, then 'research' being about...

It’s brilliant you’ve done a great job of what seemed an impossible task. agree that there is something different about people choosing to click through and ‘get more’ themselves once the gist has been emphasised that makes it better accepted too

hmmm agreed. fingers crossed that one is heard by those to whom it was sent. I saw 'Recognition' and thought 'of whom' (or what as an entity) when they put it as their primary 'emphasis' for the new professional society?

No I agree with what you are suggesting. Whilst typing with my index finger and swift button pressing of the space bar is straighforward, it isn't at all with my little finger which clearly isn't designed/intended for those types of tasks. But also I think that different keyboard set ups would...

There seems to be downloads here at the Tread lab: Tools — TReAD Lab But as there is a form for access for one, and then a download for one which seems to be staggered including an MRI type thing I'm not fully sure what is involved and what you'd need to run it computer-wise etc.

Agreed. And I think the appropriate term is it being an individual's manifesto. With a few points to some whizz bangs to say 'look laypersons some science because it turned blue' being used to cover for what seems to be a term that doesn't originate from either laboratory or solid validation.

I find the test with these things - and the authors who are becoming the stooges inadvertently for others might want to do this check on themselves - is to just substitute any other minority and related tropes into what you've just said and see if you think your job/partner/friends would ever...

Ahh I've updated it all slightly as I made an error first in my table sorting and then have updated the cut-off needed for completion of hard to be 6.446 My concern ended up being whether it explained 'number of hard completed'. Having been staring at the magic eye table for a few days now it...

and, just in case the average wasn't fair I've done another check using 'best of' any hard trials they did in the warm-up round (which might equivalate to the idea of a 'max button-press' sort of test). It isn't being revelatory either in explaining the data on its own. I had some sort of...

OK so done the button-press rate for the warm up rounds. Sorted by button-press rate for the hard ones of the warm-ups. Only 4 HVs had less than 4.6446 rate (EDITED to update this to be more specific rate needed to complete a hard task) but 10 ME-CFS were beneath this rate. But other than...

I'm guessing that on the highlighting of ME-CFS H that means that button-press rate isn't correlated to eg SF-36 physical function. As effort-preference is defined by choice then if that button-press rate stands in the warm-up it 'isn't that' causing (the button-press rate) there? Good...

interesting on ME-CFS H