Search results

exactly. this is why you have a study protocol that lays out beforehand how your team plans to analyze the data once its collected.

wait. pigs can't fly?

One could of course argue that the results, as presented in the reanalysis paper, were in fact reliable as outcomes of the study. They showed that even with all the built-in bias from the study design, they didn't get decent reports of benefits.

yeah, I saw that. but she seemed to be talking about CBT/GET, so I'm going to assume the 2004 first version of the exercise review is what it's supposed to be referring to. but it's pretty unclear so that's really just a guess.

Oh, in answering my own question, I assume the first is the 2004 review of exercise for CFS.

Does anyone understand the Watt reference to three Cochrane reviews? Besides the 2008 CBT review, is she referring to both the 2015 and 2017 publication of the same exercise review? Or what?

The participant that I know of who withdrew did it after she had finished the trial. That's when she found out they had links to disability insurers. So they already had all her data. That's why they claim it took months to recover from the removal. I fail to understand how, with computers...

During the FOIA tribunal they used it as an example of someone so concerned about confidentiality that she withdrew her data--in other words, they used it to support her argument. In fact, the only confidentiality she was worried about was that she was in dispute over disability and the PACE...

In fact she withdrew consent after finishing the study when she found out the PACE authors had links with disability insurance companies. she was very angry not to have been told about these conflicts of interests. they tried to convince her to let them use her data but she refused. I don't know...

I used to say that the recovery paper did not report any approval by any oversight committees. More recently I've simply stated it as a declarative. If they had approval, they would have cited it. Absent mention of oversight committee approval, as far as I'm concerned it means they didn't get...

also, these are treatments for symptoms arising from ME, not for the ME itself. I think that's what the sentence means essentially, but it's ambiguous.

Oh, I see I missed the cut-off time. I was going to add my name with those two changes. oh, well.

and again, I would say "government health agencies" in the US. Most agencies haven't had anything to do with it, so it's not right to say "every" government health agency has rejected it.

Hi, it's University of California, Berkeley. It's the Berkeley campus of the University of California, which has a batch of campuses around the state. There is no Berkeley University (well, there's some private online operation, I think, which is no relation).

Hi, I'm just getting up to speed this morning. A couple of points about the letter. I have been using the phrasing "no legitimate evidence" or "no convincing evidence" or some phrasing like that--there certainly is "evidence" for CBT/GET, so to say there is "no evidence" is not accurate. It's...

yes, this is what I'm wondering. Were they specifically commissioned to promote this? Or is there some other more generic arrangement? It's not really clear.

thanks for providing that data. I'd forgotten about the real-world results.

well I was just trying to provide them with a plausible out. I didn't necessarily know if it was in fact the case.

I've often wondered if in their clinics they might be defining CFS broadly and so treating a lot of people they say have CFS with CBT and GET and getting decent results, because a lot of those have idiopathic fatigue and/or undiagnosed depressive or anxiety disorders and actually benefit from...

You're not thick. The ad was sent to a GP, and then forwarded to me. I didn't want to forward the e-mail and didn't bother to cut-and-paste it in my post or letter, but then it was found on their site, as mentioned above.