Search results

yes, all those percentages are of the 316 who provided data at follow-up. Unbelievable how they mangled the description in the paper. These people can't even understand their own findings properly, and no one--not the authors, peer reviewers or editors--recognized this obvious problem. What a joke.

And of course much of the findings do not have any significance tests.

When i asked questions about Professor Crawley's questionable work, the Bristol University vice chancellor filed multiple complaints with Berkeley's chancellor about my "behaviour." So ask questions about her work at your peril!

I speak Russian so I can read this bulge in the original!!

in reading it again, it seems they repeat the same mistake about 6% and 9% in the discussion section as well, identifying the wrong denominator. I'd missed that.

Ha! I'm a modest guy!

https://www.virology.ws/2021/12/07/trial-by-error-professor-chalder-messes-up-again-in-new-paper-on-cfs-and-employment-outcomes/

So they're making up that they used NICE criteria, I guess?

Ok, Chalder appears to have mis-written the abstract, judging by the full paper. She did not mean that 53% of those who were in employment at baseline stayed in employment. That's incorrect. According to the actual data, 53% of the entire sample of 316 was employed at both baseline and...

Also, it is rich to have Chalder calling for work-related outcomes given that the PACE authors rejected the objectivity of this measure in the end because it didn't yield any positive results. They dismissed it because economic changes meant that getting back to work was not necessarily just up...

I had this question too. The numbers make no sense.

In an entertaining but completely unrelated example of this, The New York Times wrote a few years ago that the first sentence of the racist bilge, Gone wth the Wind, was "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful." I wrote to the Times requesting a correction, since the first sentence is actually...

This is absurd. The study doesn't show anything since there is no comparison group. People tend to get better over time. No way to tell from this whether the supplement had anything to do with it.

This is certainly true. I was trying to interpret it in the way they might be viewing it.

Keeping a diary definitely impacts behavior. this is well-known in studies of diet, when people keep a food diary for 3 days or a week. No one wants to write down chocolate bars and donuts and supersize glasses of Coke. So they tend to forget to write them down, or simply avoid those foods...

That would seem to be the implication, but couldn't they also say they're doing it to retrain body parts rather than because of deconditioning? They seem to hinge their interpretation on the "fixed" incremental aspect, so if it's incremental but not "fixed" they can assume they can get away with...

of course they could always discount those results afterwards as not objective after all because of economic changes. but still best to not include them at all.

Thanks. someone sent me a transcript I think from youtube (I didn't even know how to upload from zoom to youtube and put it on Virology Blog, so now I do). Hopefully in the next day or two I can edit it to correct weirdnesses (I recently read a transcript about an interview on neurotransmitters...

They always engaged in double-talk. In the studies, they were more reserved in calling it a "modest" or "moderate" effect. In press conference, Trudie Chalder falsely stated that twice as many in the intervention groups got "back to normal." They hyped the word "recovery." But when criticized...

Thanks for flagging these. seems like good material for a post...