Search results

There's a bit more info here: https://www.prohealth.com/library/montreal-cfs-ii-stopping-pem-antibody-subset-unutmazs-big-surprise-81856

Yes - that's specifically for Myhill's MAIMES campaign. Although SW is listed as an SMC doctor, he claims he never saw any patients during the trial (only during recruitment). I was trying to gather *unsolicited* reports from elsewhere on the net together in one place.

No idea. Maybe someone should ask him? I tried, but I think my query was too vague or broad (or something).

This happened in 1996. Here is that Lancet editorial again - Frustrating survey of chronic fatigue - which gave way to The Lancet's change of stance on ME. This led to the disappearance of ME in the pages of TL and elsewhere. The editorial was brought up again in a commentary in 2002 as a...

I think because it has since been reworked into a report. Formatting alone will do that.

Thanks Barry, I've added it to the PACE reports thread.

From another thread... So far we have too many second-hand accounts. Why are people not coming forward?

In case he hadn't noticed, so does the whole NHS! But throughout this argument, he is being disingenuous. He is not answering the question. There is no doubt that the PACE trial also conflated CFS and ME. Such lax criteria can easily include both (all) because diagnosis is dependent on whatever...

Do you have a link to that comment? I had a look earlier, and found a few more to add to the PACE reports thread, but couldn't find the one you mentioned.

http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/30/pace-trial-investigators-respond-to-david-tuller/comment-page-1/#comment-41540

And another: http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/30/pace-trial-investigators-respond-to-david-tuller/comment-page-1/#comment-41500

I've found one of the PACE participant accounts on Virology Blog: http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/30/pace-trial-investigators-respond-to-david-tuller/comment-page-1/#comment-41476 I shall keep looking for others...

Here are graphs specific to the GET arm. I've posted the gif and the graph I put together to show that data are NOT missing at random - ie, I suspect that 6mWT results for GET group were biased towards those with better PF at the end of the trial.

Just having start and end points in different colours would do it. I'll see if I can work out how to get Excel to do that - but it will be messy. I thought the movement was helpful to show how similar the groups were.

Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately), I didn't have the interim data, so I suspect each blue dot jumps around an awful lot in reality (as @Graham found with the FINE data).

But if visiting the clinic causes exacerbation of symptoms, then you can't assess it properly. If they had been truly concerned about harms, they would have started from a completely different place. It was never a fair comparison, but I don't think they ever really cared about that.

And me. Does that make us "impatient activists"? :p

Excel for the multiple timepoints and graphs. Then hours and hours (yawn) of cutting and pasting into Powerpoint (and swearing when things didn't line up properly). Then saved as WMV file (from slide show). Then uploaded to a WMV to GIF converter online.

Sample size calcs should be based on what would be considered clinically important, not just statistically significant. They seem to have based it on the results that previous trials got, and haven't looked at whether any of that was clinically relevant or not. I would have thought that for...