Search results

I see she is at UC Davis. I will touch base with her and introduce myself.

Hm. What do you mean that it has been "formally published" as a fallacy?

Exactly. So using a clinical case definition in research can be problematic.

That's right. That's how it originally appeared when they sent the letter in. I never noticed before that it was likely missing a word.

No, thanks for pointing it out. should be fixed now.

The estimates for how many people have ME also seem to indicate that the huge majority of those don't know they have ME and/or haven't been properly diagnosed. That means the audience is not really the quarter million in UK who are estimated to be ill but the 10 or 20% or whatever of that group...

I can't seem to access this through the Berkeley online library access. Has anyone seen it?

it will be interesting to look at what changes were implemented for the full trial based on the feasibility trial, because I'm assuming they folded in all the feasibility trial participants into the full trial, a la LP study. anyway it's only Christmas Eve early afternoon here.

It's nice being Jewish and not feel like you have to feel anything one way or the other on Christmas Eve.

The study headline is way out of line. It clearly implies a causal relationship. This is a cross-sectional study. It cannot show a causal relationship. It is obvious that people will be more worried about pain when they know they will do something that will cause them more pain. To define that...

Of course her 12 corrections do not appear to have slowed her down...

The article kind of distorted the point of that meta-analysis. That study found 0.76% prevalence on the basis of clinically defined cases rather than self-reports. So no one was endorsing that expansive prevalence estimate. Here is the results section from the abstract: "Results: Of 216 records...

Is this letter to Karla and her response something I can post publicly?

I don't think she ever claimed that. She touted her heroic decision to NOT leave the field because of her great concern for all the poor children who needed her to remain dedicated.

I agree with this. In the US, when Viagra was approved, insurance companies immediately started covering it. It wasn't even debated. And yet decades after that, women can have trouble getting basic contraception through insurance, or maybe the pharmacist refuses to provide the morning-after...

Also, this statement in the highlights seems to be wrong: "Results suggest the Fukuda case definition does not define a heterogeneous group." I mean, they found that Fukuda DOES produce a heterogeneous group. The paper includes this sentence: "Differences between hiPEM and loPEM CFS patients...

These remarks all seem very pertinent to me.

yes, that's what I was wondering--whether people get better on cognitive tests through familiarity with the test rather than legitimate improvements.

Then I'll see you there. I'm currently planning to go, unless something changes...

Yup--just noticed that. I was going to respond to him but others did such a good job I didn't need to!