Search results

Good connection! I hadn't noticed that.

The journal has written us back that our letter has been sent to the authors for their response. The journal promises to get back to us with a plan of action, likely next month.

I've never understood how anyone could accurately assess this.

Gee, ya think?

Nice that they got to shoehorn in Crawley's LP study, however. I doubt this paper mentions that study's 3,000-word correction. Edited: Out of an excess of discretion, I removed a very derisive adjective before "LP study." It was true but I decided to remove the word anyway.

I wrote about that 2019 presentation from McMaster University here. The "findings" are meaningless: https://www.virology.ws/2020/09/02/trial-by-error-what-is-the-dynamic-neural-retraining-system/

Secondary generational trauma because their parents or grandparents were victims of domestic partner violence?

No, they are incapable of conjuring such thoughts or other reasonable explanations, it would seem. They are trapped in their own self-delusions.

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...