Search results

where is this? In the supplementary material?

I know. I fall behind. I updated it a couple weeks ago. I should do it each time I post, and don't. Thanks for the reminder.

Thanks. Among my least favorite activities.

Does anyone understand whether the fMRI findings mean anything, or what they mean if they do mean something?

I'm trying to be charitable. I don't think that comment in any way makes up for the article itself.

This seems just like bullshit to me. Important to remember that the CODES study had null results in terms of reducing seizure frequency at end of trial--those who DIDN'T get the intervention had greater seizure reduction than those who did...

Just to point out that this Gutkin is the same lead author who last year published a systematic review hyping the purported evidence that psychological therapies are effective interventions for functional neurological disorders. He announced that as his first published paper. i guess we're...

I think the paper was written by a computer algorithm.

Yes you can, Barry! Yes you can!!! !

And apparently you don't need to compare it to anything, either. Even without a comparison group, you can make claims of effectiveness, as these people do, and as Chalder recently did in her study of GET results from the clinic.

And I had complained to the journal couple months ago about this sentence: "Graded exercise therapy (GET) is an effective treatment for chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), but concerns have been raised about its safety." it is completely unacceptable to assert as fact a point--"GET is...

What leads you to that conclusion?

I have found this odd as well. But I agree that any more time spent thinking/talking about or discussing him is a waste at this point. I could have been using that time to write an article or clip my toenails. Garner will say what he will say and there is nothing anyone can do about it. In...

I have thought the same thing. They might elide between the two without realizing it, because it is self-evident to them that the treatments are "effective."

Has anyone captured the video and also the proposal, which has now been removed? And was there an official society explanation for what happened? The link now goes to nothing.

Is this really the derivation of it?

This is pretty bad. And again Chalder is making claims that these findings demonstrate "effectiveness" while claiming that the study design does not allow for causal explanations. To claim something is "effective" is making a causal claim. She has documented an association between people who...

I think his is likely the case--especially since the new guidelines undercut, say, the IAPT expansion to MUS and all efforts to treat Long COVID as if it arises from "deconditioning" and "unhelpful" illness beliefs.

This is right, I think. What individual who has invested his/her/their career in an idea and a series of studies promoting that idea could decide at 50 or 60 or 70 not only that their research sucks in fundamental ways but that they are actually responsible for causing harm and damaging people's...

When they have poor follow-up, they seem to overlook this and tend to report results without taking them into account. This was what Brian and I found with the CBT paper published by Chalder, Wessely and company based on clinic data.