Paul Garner on Long Covid and ME/CFS - BMJ articles and other media.

[richie]

Does Garner show any interest in the Dutch muscle studies (and, incidentally, does anyone know if there has been follow up of that cohort?). The letter seemed to be an endorsement of pacing and mutual support and the Recovery website anecdotal endorsement of various known approaches. If people have a go at sth and it helps, fair play......
However, the question that bothers me is whether considering the Dutch work or other scientific work or asking the question "Would this have helped Lynn Gilderdale?" amounts to negativity or failure to be "recovery minded"?

 

[Utsikt]

Does Garner show any interest in the Dutch muscle studies

Yes, he and others wrote a response that was very misguided and got torn apart by Wüst & Co:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/muscle-abnormalities-worsen-after-post-exertional-malaise-in-long-covid-2023-4-w%C3%BCst-van-vugt-appelman-et-al.34994/post-586938

 

[richie]

Yes, he and others wrote a response that was very misguided and got torn apart by Wüst & Co:

https://www.s4me.info/threads/muscle-abnormalities-worsen-after-post-exertional-malaise-in-long-covid-2023-4-w%C3%BCst-van-vugt-appelman-et-al.34994/post-586938

Did he engage seriously with the response or would that be anti-recoverymindedness?

 

[Utsikt]

Did he engage seriously with the response or would that be anti-recoverymindedness?

I don’t think they wrote a response to Wüst’s response

 

[Utsikt]

A couple of messages that came in response to someone calling @dave30th a sensationalist blogger because he has criticised PACE (and in their mind done a bad job at it): first tweet, second tweet

PACE trial was co-designed with Action for ME from a patient derived question. Trial results showed adaptive pacing inferior to CBT & GET. The RESULT led to attempts to discredit the study: an example of extreme belief disconfirmation bias. #mecfs https://x.com/ZacharyGrinDPT/ZacharyGrinDPT/status/1944610457752375309

And I will say again: The PACE trial evaluated negotiated GET. It was not FORCED fixed increments. GET must be used in combination with a change in belief in what the symptoms mean: #mecfs is a psychophysiological condition, although this feels counterintuitive

Does this mean that Garner is opposed to fixed increments GET?

 

[Utsikt]

I wonder how you can be aware of disconfirmation bias and apparently think that you’re immune to it. Maybe he has disconfirmation about the absence of disconfirmation bias?