Search results

This is just a bunch of marketing buzzwords thrown together without any sense or reason. Buzzwords used to describe the very same thing that has been obsessively pushed for decades as if it's innovative or whatever. Frankly, even asparagus water is more credible than this. It's offensive that...

Esther Crawley being confused that medical professionals are following the advice she has been pushing for decades is... on brand. Denier-in-chief is confused why her peers follow her advice to deny the thing she has spent her career denying. It's amazing that no amount of failure can overcome...

Oh noes, we certainly would not want to have an ideologically-driven commitment to force a population to accept a level of morality and disability, now would we? As long as that population can effectively fight back, anyway. It would really be bad, wouldn't it? Not half as bad as the people...

Until it's retracted, single-minded ideologues will keep pushing it and misleading people. Even though he says this is about LC he thinks he is making a point here, and keeps somehow insisting that any of those trials considered PEM, which he knows nothing about, and none of those trials even...

Nah, they're too predictable, everyone can expect them to barge in uninvited.

Surprising, given Australia's low infection rates, they are one of the few countries that could simply never discuss it given the low number of expected cases. Especially as opposed to some who do have high rates and have to suppress LC to pursue herd immunity.

The use of those words, "may", "could", "can" leads to very silly stuff. Of course those are all symptoms of the acute illness, but they would only know that by checking. Of course not everyone has those symptoms, but they "may" do, which is their own standard for raising a correlation, which...

In one and only one direction, of course. The one requiring too many assumptions to even try to account for.

I'm pretty sure people who pick cherries for a living don't do nearly as much cherry-picking as this. They pick them all and sort it out later.

I doubt there is a limit to how absurd the "treatment" can be, it's not judged this way, it's judged based on perception that the problem is silly and therefore it's worth trying anything, even the same silly thing over and over again without regard for any process or common sense.

The CDC has published this very disappointing report that shows they are not learning anything. Recommends standard exercise rehabilitation and therapy even though it recognizes the severity of the illness is so high LC patients are on average worse than cancer patients going to those services...

Worth watching. Vlad nailed it. It really seems as if there is about to be a clash of ideology, science and common sense vs. the biopsychosocial model. Long Covid alone makes that strategy insane, on top of creating a breeding ground for variants. But the BPS ideology cannot reconcile that...

One interesting point, in a further comment down OP mentions that this clinic actually seems decent, is not pushing GET or anything like that. Doesn't seem of much help but not being bad is almost success here. Hopefully it isn't just the "good"/better clinics doing that, they are the ones with...

It really does look like virtue signaling. They will mention it from time to time but have zero intention of doing anything about it. At best it may be a way to discredit research they don't like, otherwise it's just posturing. All talk, zero walk.

It clearly failed. It will be written down as a success. Hence the circular failure that keeps on failing by doing harmful things while refusing to do useful ones. Because as long as the wrong things are being done, there is no need to acknowledge that they are wrong, otherwise clearly other...

Yeah, seeing that too. Seems to be the main argument lately. This argument is founded on the assumption that the scientific effort has been sufficient to have uncovered something if there's anything to discover. Obviously not even close, and anything that faces this much opposition can be made...

Probably even before. Language aside, this could mostly have been written in 1915. The earliest texts on "functional illness" basically argue the exact same, only the citations and a few terms would be different. It's like a time machine, frankly, a field supposed to be based on science that has...