Letter: The overview on current evidence for the treatment of ME/CFS is based on the principles of scientific assessment 2023 Ludwig et al

Paywall, https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00115-023-01516-1

Unhelpfully no preview is available at all. But given the title, the German authors and text, and the references given, I suspect that it is some sort of defence of BPS ideology in relation to ME/CFS.

Perhaps somebody who can access it can tell us more.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1673856729426083844


Edited: It's a letter in response to Ludwig et al.

 

? That is a different letter.

 

It's long, so I'll post some of the main sections (auto-translated).

 

Concluding —

 

Thanks, and pretty much as I suspected.

 

Boring 19th century bigoted opinions are boring

 

Translation where there are huge gaps in knowledge con merchants and parasites of all stripes should be able to prosper .

 

Blog from Brian Hughes.

“A science that does not allow opposing opinions abolishes knowledge.” Er, kind of

"Colleagues and I have responded to a paper in Der Nervenarzt, the leading German neurology journal, pointing out various reasons why its “overview” of evidence-based approaches to ME/CFS treatment lacked, well, evidence.
...
In summary, our critique is as follows:

1. While it is true that exact causes are unknown for sure, the authors of the paper that was published in Der Nervenarzt omitted to describe how several biological pathways have been strongly implicated in the pathogenesis of ME/CFS.
2. The authors omitted to mention PEM (post-exertional malaise) and its implications for adverse outcomes following exercise therapies.
3. The authors tenuously claimed that ME/CFS prognosis is “good” by citing a highly questionable (and cherry-picked) study, while ignoring the preponderance of research on this topic which shows that prognosis is, in fact, very poor.
4. The authors attempted to criticise the new (2021) NICE guideline for ME/CFS by citing studies that NICE themselves already identified as being of such poor quality as to be unreliable.
5. The authors argued that comorbidity implies causality, a clear (and rather silly) example of the correlation fallacy.
6. The authors incorrectly stated that there are no objective markers of outcomes in ME/CFS.
7. The authors ignored the scale of incapacitation in ME/CFS, which has been recorded at around 25%."

https://thesciencebit.net/2023/07/0...sing-opinions-abolishes-knowledge-er-kind-of/