Search results

sounds comparable.

No what's that about?

yeah, this sounds ridiculous but of course is a real concern. The motives of the GET/CBT ideological brigades and their enablers at the SMC are unclear. Are they going to find a way to prescribe GET/CBT for this dysfunction or are they doing this because they recognize where things are going and...

where did he say this?

I think this is the question. I think all we know is that they have fatigue. So it seems like a nice "proof-of-concept" study--that a prolonged fatigue state can be induced by a short-term stimulus. That applies in broad terms to ME but not in specific ones so the claims being made seem way...

I would say that it might be an intelligent attempt to use interferon induced fatigue to inform general approaches to prolonged fatigue. I don't see why they automatically feel the need or the authority to draw specific comparisons with ME, other than in a highly speculative manner, since we...

Yes I noticed that. Interesting that it's not on their website. I wonder why that is?

It really is odd that these media outlets all covered it with that spin. it may or may not have anything to do with ME, for one reason given the vagueness of the resulting "fatigue" state the study seems to be discussing.

Do we know that SMC promoted it?

That sounds like what he presented at CMRC, or certainly a variation of it.

Yes, in the comparison arms the rate of "improvement" was about 45%, so there was a marginal 15 % improvement for CBT/GET. When "improvement" dropped to around 20 %, the comparison arms had around 10%.

I took that sentence to mean they reported being reasonably active after the "treatment."

It should have ended the day The Lancet published a paper in which participants could meet outcome thresholds (being "within normal range") at baseline.

Yes, it's probably good to assume those 2000 diagnoses are an artifact of something. It went by me in the interview so I'm glad someone raised it.

They're Norwegian.

I thought Phil gave a good talk.

Certainly no arguing with this. It should be withdrawn. Whether it will be is another question.

It could easily end up like PACE--not withdrawn but essentially discredited and hopefully not really citable any longer as "evidence" to support bad policies.

The PACE folks were co-authors on the IPD exercise review protocol and the unpublished review based on it. As I understand it, that's because Cochrane allows those who provide trial data to be used in IPD reviews to be authors on those IPD reviews. They were not authors on the basic exercise...

Cochrane had clearly decided not to publish the IPD review itself--that was the one that had been sent around and gotten scathing outside reviews. They had published the protocol for that IPD review several years ago. Presumably, there was no point in keeping the protocol published if the review...