Search results

@Trish and @Andy, The sentence has now been changed by the journal into: “To date, some data indicate that cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) may not be efficacious as a stand-alone treatment for long COVID-19 fatigue (Vink & Vink-Neise, 2020).”

That is very true I don’t think there’s any chance of convincing the CBT fundamentalists, however the hope is that proper scientists are not happy about research where they they label the severely ill as recovered, make endless endpoint changes to get the desired results et cetera

The problem is that you would need 15 letters or more and they would never publish that many in response to one article, especially if you know that the editor of that journal is a PACE trial supporter who states he is against bad science yet continues to ignore all the problems of that study

That’s one possibility another possibility is publishing a review of their arguments elsewhere which is what we’ve done (published last week) and there is a thread about it on this forum here...

Also according to their guideline for authors, ”Letters for publication in the print journal must reach us within 2 weeks of publication of the original item and should be no longer than 250 words.” With so many things in that article which are incorrect, it’s impossible to address that all in...

We’ve contacted the journal and submitted a response, so let’s see what happens…

Yes, that's very sad don’t you think?

it’s always interesting when people refer to our article but then come up with something we didn’t say. We wrote the following for example about long Covid and CBT: “Our reanalysis found that the Qure study [of CBT for Q-fever fatigue syndrome] suffered from many serious methodological...

exactly but they’re also claiming in an indirect way that patients are not motivated to get better because they don’t want to use a treatment that will help them instead of acknowledging that their treatment is useless

Thread to our analysis of this study: https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-updated-nice-guidance-exposed-the-serious-flaws-in-cbt-and-graded-exercise-therapy-trials-for-me-cfs-2022-vink-and-vink-niese.27590/

Yes, that’s correct

Thank you for that there is something really wrong with that guy just have a look at the following from your link: He is trying to say that my is not a physical disease despite all the abnormalities because: "On the other hand, there is also a long list of conditions that were once believed to...

how about the science media centre

Would that Dr also be happy if big Pharma designed a non-blinded study where participants got 16 weeks of medication, 8 weeks of internet medication and a control group that got nothing. No objective outcomes were used because that might spoil the party. Best place for studies like that is the...