Search results

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.

when you're a young academic, I assume these theories can come across as appealing and intuitive and can seem to explain lots of confusing things.

What are they looking for exactly? do they say?

Of course he did!!

I'm not sure what the best approach is here.

Reference 24 in the bit quoted about the physiological explanation for LP is a citation of Phil Parker's paper in the Romanian Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy. Just saying.

This was astonishing to me as well. It just accepts the entire premise as if it's valid. And they hang everything on the "evidence" from Crawley's bogus study. I don't understand why Fred Friedberg, who is the editor of Fatigue, would let this go through.

I don't understand the difference in meaning between the two versions.

And it is published in Fatigue. that means they likely tried to publish it elsewhere first and got rejected. But it is very weird. As @Hutan says they just have decided to make the linkage themselves between CBT and LP. The idea that they are writing papers with Phil Parker just seems really out...

My goal is to look at the research and related activities, and push the journals/academics/agencies where I can for accuracy and proper methodology. In terms of "PR," Adam's right that that's not my primary goal or function, but I certainly hope others can use what I post or publish to good...

Yes, close--he said that in relation to CODES, the study of CBT for psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) because he knows it works from his clinical practice.

Ah, right.

What's this?