Search results

Maybe somebody might find this of interest, maybe not. Top 5 Twitter Patient Leaders to Watch WEGO Health | February 19, 2018 https://www.wegohealth.com/2018/02/19/top-twitter-patient-leaders/

I think I got it on this thread: https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-funnier-side-of-life.181

Unfortunately some of my comments were not copied across to PubMed Commons for some reason. I'm not sure why. I'm copying them now. If you download the extension for Firefox and Chrome, you get told that there are comments there.

They have previously been copied across automatically e.g. https://pubpeer.com/publications/0802939434D7E0ADBCC96C08DBCC7A ETA: Actually, I see a recent one for me wasn't copied across. I very much hope they won't get deleted. :arghh:

I just posted this, for what it is worth. I encourage other people to also use PubPeer, ideally with referenced comments. Anyone who downloads the PubPeer extension e.g. for Google Chrome, gets alerted to comments in various places e.g. on the journal website itself...

I don't live in the US. Others would be in a better position to answer this. But I thought it deserved its own thread.

Not the fact that the budget was cut to 0, only that it might be a possibility given the overall cut to the program: The 2nd link was posted there are all right.

https://tinyurl.com/ybkbkvrv i.e. https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2019/fy-2019-detail-table.pdf The CDC CFS budget is substantial: $5.4 million per year. --- The Prevention and Public Health Fund is solely used to fund the CDC's CFS program. An article about cuts to that is here...

It is quite disappointing that the following finding from the same cohort was not mentioned: Information on activity levels before illness seems particularly relevant. Though it would have the limitation that it was based on self-report data.

So it looks like Larun have moved from the -2.12 (not statistically significant) finding to the -2.55 (statistically significant) finding? Or am I reading it incorrectly? I don't think the latter finding/data is mentioned anywhere else in the review.

There is this guy who made this statement in 2016: He co-signed this letter: http://www.virology.ws/2017/03/23/an-open-letter-to-psychological-medicine-again/

Just to point out in this case "Wilshire" just refers to a point in this thread, not a point in the paper itself.

Those scores you quote for FINE are for bimodal scoring, not the 33-point CFQ.

The increase on the SF-36 physical function for the pragmatic rehab arm was 29.84 to 43.27 i.e. about 13, not 3.

Seems like there were: from: https://sites.google.com/site/pacefoir/pace-ipd_foia-qmul-2014-f73.xlsx Readme file: https://sites.google.com/site/pacefoir/pace-ipd-readme.txt

The link still works for me. Anyway here it is:

https://slate.com/technology/2018/02/doctors-are-increasingly-pushing-mindfulness-on-chronic-pain-patients.html [The critique can also apply to male patients] -- -- #ChronicPain #chronicillness

Free full text: Activity pacing: moving beyond taking breaks & slowing down https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11136-018-1794-7 It's interesting to see how "activity pacing" is now being defined by some in a way that could cause problems for some people with ME/CFS...