Search results

The gall and hubris of this guy. He's not associated with it. He's responsible for it. Among many of his peers who pushed the biopsychosocial ideology. And unless he was dumb as a brick, which I doubt, he was fully aware of the suffering and misery he inflicted the whole time. He got everything...

Some years ago, I think it was after I got ill with ME the first time and mostly recovered, me and my girlfriend contacted the local health service for that reason. We weren't ill, we wanted to get some advice in exactly that space where we could separate health care from sick care. And they...

Trying to imagine computer security experts advising people not to use antivirus or antimalware software for similar reasons and I just can't. It's too ridiculous. Even though the same thing applies, some of it is not only useless but even malicious itself. Risk management is about reducing...

Common symptoms: common. Groundbreaking stuff. You could do the same with all diseases and it would come out the same. In a similar fashion, you could randomly throw cards with common symptoms in the air and get similar results. Or you could do real work with a real purpose. To each their own...

Agrees with their expectations? Agrees with their expectations.

Again some of this would actually make sense if they simply replaced stress with exertion, which in 95-99% of all circumstances is what it actually means. Otherwise it just doesn't, it gets the dynamic backward and nothing else makes sense from that point on.

Actually this is puzzling since one of the biggest issues in science, especially so in medicine, is precisely that findings take 10-20-30 years to be applied in clinical practice. So if that's what's fashionable lately, then wow is it a massive failure.

About as informed as what LC forums knew by about July 2020. And barely at that. Probably less than average. I don't understand why almost no one in this profession seems able to question the awful logic here. That with no effective treatments, you can just deploy this useless multidisciplinary...

I also find notable that IIRC one of the things that got dropped by Cochrane is the IPD review of PACE data. Likely because it would end up the same as this: bunk.

Whatever one meta analysis or systematic review may do better than others, since others have boasted of significant benefits and established this claim as a well-known fact, in this case it was a full reanalysis using individual patient data, and it follows the usual pattern where individual...

Moderators of the effect of therapeutic exercise for knee and hip osteoarthritis: a systematic review and individual participant data meta-analysis https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanrhe/article/PIIS2665-9913(23)00122-4/fulltext Methods We did a systematic review and individual participant...

There just doesn't seem to be much consideration for the human element at all. Something they just never got around to thinking about and it's been this way for so long that no one can find the wit to point out how absurd it is. No doubt the usual response is the same we are familiar with: we've...

Technically, it lasts as long as they allow it, until they decide to do something competent about it and end it. So it's one of those things where the outcome is determined by the behavior is determined by the outcome and so on and on like a mutually interacting force. By choosing to do...

Clownish pseudoscience, identical to the mass of clownish pseudoscience that preceded it, with made-up numbers from quacks who understand nothing of this. But, hey, they got a paper on their record and that's all they care about.

I'd say the easy age of medicine is over. The golden age is yet to happen. It's missing a key piece of technology: AI. Medicine won't really be viable until AI in a similar way as engineering couldn't take off before computers. Not just research but especially clinical medicine. Everything is in...

The RECOVER newsletter sent a notice that they will hold a public comment period. 30 minutes on September 24, 9:15 to 9:45. Not much. Deadline is the 20th, questions/comments/rants can be submitted here: https://forms.office.com/g/0QeZv5zjZx.

And in the non-expert participants I notice many who are very well-versed. Not so bad considering the awful start. Should be a lot better, easily, but compared to the usual input this is a bit above average. It's frustrating that they are taking the longest way around, the profession is so...

Probably even more important. If Marshall's team had been able to show that ulcers are likely caused by bacteria but didn't go through the extreme step of curing it on himself, providing an effective treatment, it likely would have been dismissed for years until a series of trials would have...

90%? At least.

It's really the themes I have issues with. They never interview enough people to merit this and basically amount to editorialization when they try to force them into boxes. And all it takes is the slightest bias in selection to create a wildly misleading picture out of it. Which is more often...