Search results

yes absolutely. i think the framing of the BMJ story gave a good indication of the best available arguments at their disposal, even though the best available arguments are terrible and stupid. but those are the themes that will be highlighted.

In the protocols for both the feasibility and full trials (they wrote one for each), they promised to vet self-reported school attendance against official records. They didn't mention these official records one way or the other in the feasibility trial report and in the full trial report. The...

I am surprised but not surprised to see that the hospital is still touting the PACE trial. pretty weird to see. I assume a lot of that is just knee-jerk cluelessness about anything going on outside the bubbles they inhabit.

I'm not familiar with that paper. What's the reference? The NYT Magazine ran an article a couple of years ago all about the notion that the diplomats in Cuba were suffering from FND--functional neurological disorder. Stone was a big part of that article--can't remember if Carson also was.

This abstract talks about changes within the experimental group but not about comparisons with the placebo group. Why doesn't the abstract mention the placebo arm results? Seems a bit weird if they actually found any differences between the groups and not just from baseline to assessment points...

Right but I would assume in this case most of these individualized treatment plans for the same individual would vary from clinician to clinician.

interesting, I realized as I wrote it that I had no idea where it came from or what it originally meant.

If what he means is that the people with Long Covid will now have the right to legal redress for civil rights violations under the Americans with Disabilities Act, that could be a big deal.

I definitely agree with this.

I think I do. if it's who I think, they had made similar representations to me about the need for an investigation of Action For ME about the PACE trial, and I had indicated I didn't see the point.

It's very easy for someone o be pretty careful in writing a paper to disclose everything, including null results on a primary outcome, while casting and interpreting things in their favor. It can be hard to characterize that sort of presentation as hiding things because they have included them...

absolutely. many people will look at the conclusion of the abstract as their main take-away. It's really disgraceful and demonstrates pretty terrible peer review processes

Yes, it was great to work with Michiel on this.

Of course. they always do the same thing with these "attribution" associations, even when it is obvious the causal relationship could very plausibly run in the other direction from what they conclude.

The two people in the study had various odd symptoms. I'm not sure what is gained by calling them FND as opposed to just symptoms that can't be explained.

Yes, a colleague of mine at Berkeley, an infectious disease physician, sent me that. He was struck that they ran it. A lot of clinicians will see it.

Maybe there are a lot of Artemis Coachings? It doesn't really matter who it is, actually.

Is there a link for the whole program? I just saw the text version.

Except she doesn't bounce back like him with positive manly thoughts. At the end--now--she still has symptoms. she's improved but not better. Alan Carson also has a supporting role.

that sounds right. it's synthetic certainty in that something is true within the artificial universe of how a study was designed and how data were analyzed, but it has little relationship to the real world.