Search results

This is a reasonable question but we can also ask why homeopathy has been recommended for centuries when it does no good. The fact that lots of doctors recommend something is I am afraid not very useful. Doctors used to recommend tonsillectomies or spending six weeks in bed after heart attacks...

Yup, this is just an advertising site.

No, it has not been scientifically validated and since it has been around for at least thirty years that probably means there is nothing much to it. The general idea that ulcerative colitis, Crohn's and irritable bowel syndrome all stem from a similar leaky gut problem is quite clearly wrong...

If POTS and NMH are due to poor autonomic regulation then I do not think it makes any sense to supplement with salt and water. The kidney will simply restore what it thinks is the 'right' volume but if the autonomic nervous system is not keeping vascular tone right then it is not going to be the...

Why does this lady think she is in a position to lecture other people about getting things right when she is so good at getting things wrong herself? Seems like teaching grandmothers to take the motes out of their eyes, to mix metaphors.

And by the way Dr Miller, psychotherapy does f*** all for rheumatoid arthritis - absolutely sweet Fanny Adams.

Sorry Dr Miller but you have clearly missed the point completely. CFS is unusual only in that poor clinical trial research is touted as being competent when it is not. Competent researchers in ME/CFS have no problem at all with patient 'activists', who value good quality research. It is not in...

I don't follow that @MeSci. If the sodium level is low desmopressin is contraindicated. If it is normal there is no need to take any. If desmopressin is going to lower sodium levels then taking sodium will have no effect. With patients with inappropriate ADH secretion pouring sodium chloride...

Maybe, I certainly agree I may have been a bit quick to respond. But on further deliberation I am not sure I end up with a very different view. Highland says amongst other things: This paper presents the idea that diseases can be explained and treated with biological theories, mental illness...

I doubt there is much sense to be made. I suspect what they are proving is that diagnoses are made by people who use adaptive learning and sometimes go maladaptive. Its a bit like psychosomatic research I suppose - all in the heads of the researchers. Symptoms fall into certain clusters because...

A pinched nerve would be expected to show some disc change on MRI but no spinal canal narrowing. The spinal canal is to do with the cord, not the nerves. So that makes sense. Pain affecting jaw and shoulder is a little unusual and suggests something like the third cervical nerve root. It is more...

We could do one of those papers with seventy three main authors and a subsidiary list of six hundred minor authors. We would need to make sure 55% of them were women though, to avoid flack.

I was thinking of something a bit like that. Whenever I have been seriously ill (cancer and stuff) I have benefited greatly from having my wife present scaring the pants off the doctor with difficult and pertinent questions.

Oh come now, it's great fun. As long as we keep our tongues in our cheeks.

Yes, exactly, but it's partly because men never quite got the eye rolling trick.

Er, one could. Sadly, Einstein made virtually no contribution to science after his early papers. He spent decades trying to prove quantum theory was wrong. And in his final years he realised how much time he had wasted and that he was wrong.

Typical male chauvinist bias I would say. Why would the old men be better at cautionary tales than the old ladies? One man can teach six kids to fish so it does not matter if another five die off. The skills of motherhood are more one to one so grannies would be more useful. And since the women...

There was never such a guarantee of reliability. The Lancet has historically prided itself on not being peer reviewed. It assumed that it was so important everyone would assume what it published was the best. It was never the case. But fifty years ago most articles submitted were of reasonable...

I am afraid that this is not research or even an 'article' or a 'journal'. The only references to this 'journal' I can find are comments about it being a scam. The abstract tells us nothing and for some reason the 'patient' becomes 'patients'. The paper cannot possibly have passed any meaningful...

Not sure I follow that. The exam seems to be a fashionable buzz word for 'everything'. It seems a bit like saying don't try climbing the Matterhorn, climb the world. Tough to know how to do that.