I'm hoping that everyone else will be sufficiently worried about this that their precautions mean I can ignore it. I'm doing my bit by so rarely leaving the house.
And it looked like they only had one trial with a minimal intervention control group, which had no significant differences either. I'd have been interested in having that result in the abstract/summary too.
A lot of Cochrane reviews on issue I'm interested in just don't seem worth reading tbh.
Even just via google translate, that seemed pretty damning, along with their failure to respond.
Would we be able to get a translation of this image from the article?
Yeah, that doesn't sound convincing as a 'real' reason to me. I wonder if their concern about too many PubMed citations began around the time powerful people were fighting against the withdrawal of Larun's review?
Does anyone know why this policy was changed and what process led to the change?
Is it just a co-incidence that this was occurring in the midst of the fight back against the withdrawal of Larun's exercise review?
I don't know about the author or what sort of evidence their is for any therapy that they'd prefer, but the piece seemed worthwhile, and it's good to have these sorts of concerns being aired to different audiences. There are therapists from a range of background who think that they should take a...
(more of the Lancet acting as if it's not part of the problem)
Thiis probably isnnt worth posting, but for those of you who have followed the PACE trial and enjoy being irritated by the hypocrisy of Horton and co...
I liked their tactic of talking about being 'open-minded' about re-defining CFS in a way which would lead to 8.6% of the population being given the diagnosis. Very subtle. 'Our work may seem absurd to the closed minded...'
I see little reason to trust anyone involved in this. If Cochrane recognise that the history of comments from someone like Gøtzsche might mean he is not the best person to author a review on this (with some legitimate reason - I've not followed all of the details enough to have an opinion on...
I wouldn't hope for much there... the CMRC have invited the PACE trial's Gabrielle Murphy to share her expertise on 'what works':
https://www.actionforme.org.uk/uploads/images/2020/02/CMRC_2020_programme_current.pdf
To me, the problems surrounding ME/CFS seem to stem from people going beyond what the evidence shows. At the moment, we can't know whether or not there may potentially be some form of psychotherapy/rehabilitation that would be worth funding for ME/CFS at some point in the future. The problems...
Given how rubbish and unethical many of those devising/providing psychological treatments for ME/CFS have shown themselves to be, I don't think the lack of benefit they provide to patients shows us much about that!
Surely there'd be meaningful change to almost any illness if someone was to switch from responding in the most unreasonable and self-destructive way to some optimised cognitive perfection. Equally, for many definitive 'psychological' conditions there will be neurological aspects that can't be...
But if you're defining illnesses as disease processes then isn't it a truism that all illnesses are "purely physical"? In which case, saying that you think of ME/CFS as purely somatic seems likely to be misunderstood imo - which is partly my concern about this whole topic. It so often ends up...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.