Search results

Which means that the choice of criteria is relevant because of the possibility of studying a non-generalizable selection of the CF population. The other methdological flaws are more than enough to disquslify the studies, but the criteria are still relevant.

I don’t understand this. If the narrow population (NP) is such that the entire population fits inside the wider population (WP), then it’s still possible that a study on the WP doesn’t include any patients from the NP. If you study only men, you can’t say that the results also apply to women...

If these findings are replicated, it means that every ME study on POTS has to account for the origin of the ME. Which is going to be very challenging because we’ve stopped testing..

A lot of people simply don’t understand the concept of scientific methodology. They believe that an opinion has the same value as evidence. This is something I frequently argue with my family about. If I say that a study they read about in the news is nonsense (95 % are BPS), they almost get...

I would argue that the most plausible explanation of this study is that people with asthma are terrible at rating their asthma in a blinded study environment. Asthma is an objectively measureable phenomenon, so any perceived benefit is irrelevant if they don’t improve the underlying condition...

I can’t help but think that these questions should have been handled by the various associations a long time ago. I’m baffled by how uncoordinated and ineffective they appear to be, from the vantage point of a passive bystander. It seems like they are mostly reactive instead of proactive. As...

HC had almost 50 % higher activity level compared to DC if you go by step count. They need at least activity matched HCs to say anything meaningfull.

Yeah, but what’s that? How on earth do you prove that something is cause by gut-brain interaction? That’s why I thought of FND.

They are openly asking people how much they can get away with. Quite dystopian..

What’s DGBI? It sounds as vague and scope creepy as FND.

There’s no arrow on iOS Chrome :(

Then they should say: we don’t have any data because the studies were crap. We need better studies.

How on earth am I supposed to rank 20 symptoms manually?! And the question on the bottom needs a wider scale: How do you feel today on a scale of 1 to 10? (10 = terrific, 1 = totally bedridden) Totally bedridden = lower end of severe. Very severe can be worse. I have no idea what this is...

No PEM?

Everyone wants to know why things happen, even though we can’t. Some make educated guesses, others just make thing up. We’ve always done that. We also like to know how to fix things.

OMF has a table here: https://www.omf.ngo/history-mecfs/

This seems relevant here: https://xkcd.com/882/

We can’t exclude the possibility that the mind can influence some parts of the body. The problem with BPS is that they take it way too far, and they have zero evidence of casuality.

Google gave me this: https://www.s4me.info/threads/genome-wide-association-analysis-identifies-genetic-variations-in-subjects-with-me-cfs-2016-schlauch-et-al.42179/

I didn’t even think of that, but you’re spot on. My sister would probably respond 4 or 5 to every single question, and she’s the least manipulative person I know. She doesn’t have autism, she just likes predictability.