Search results

They are saying the second group — who had a smaller change in CO during tilt (red in their Fig 2) — is indicative of a hyperadrenergic response, whereas in the other group (blue in their Fig 2) there is an almost 1:1 relationship between the change in cerebral blood flow and cardiac output...

Just to clarify: is this a general statement about results forthcoming, or have you seen specific results?

Yes I saw that your comment was submitted several days ago and thought that they may have screened it. But they don't seem to screen everything, nor do they seem to make appropriate edits, such as to obvious typos.

That's how I feel after spending time on a response. It's clear that the BMJ does not screen these responses, even minimally, despite having a letters editor. I get that none of this is peer-reviewed, but it does undermine the whole rapid response thing if non-genuine (whether produced by a bot...

I wouldn't waste time on content created by AI. The content adds nothing to the conversation because it's all generic stuff with a few things about telemedicine.

These are 100% AI responses. I stand by my claim that these are not real people.

Good rr from a now medically retired former NHS consultant in rehabilitation: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-12

Another good rr. This time from @Joan Crawford: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-11

After our detour into AI-bots and paper mills, there is a new rapid response from MEAction UK: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-5

Good luck!

It's all just made up. I don't think people realise there are hundreds of thousands of papers published that are totally made up. This is from the supplementary material for second paper you linked: These people don't exist. The papers are fake. It's all fake...

Referencing only studies in the original piece is the big giveaway. Chinese affiliation and address — the BMJ is UK focused, as is this article. The overall structure and the structure of the arguments are very AI.

Nope. Definitely some sort of AI / paper mill. Just writing comments/letters on a load of disparate subjects in a load of different journals, all from the past few weeks. There are two other comments from the past 11 days in the BMJ alone. https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r822/rr...

The comment from 'Xu Qi' looks like AI.

The SIRPA conference *is* the King's College 'lecture', except it's not a lecture, it's a conference talk and has nothing to do with King's College. I think whoever is posting on FB is not quite getting details correct.

I have a hard time believing this unless someone provides a screenshot. I am on X at various stages throughout the day and I or others would have seen this.

He hasn't tweeted that. Let's stick to what he actually says.

Thanks. I thought it a good opportunity to cite the factsheet, as well as link to the Dialogues films on PEM.

I found this interesting, from his valedictory lecture in 2022. I have clipped it from the full recording. Paul Garner's love of controvery and media appearances https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkxu6OQZGGA4E5wZxc8sMUhCnFz95T9-y3f?si=k6LZsIC_SUfheRwT

Stress Illness Recovery Practitioners’ Association They seem to be disciples of John Sarno, one of the first mind–body guys, who invented a new illness called tension myositis syndrome (TMS).