yes, I noticed that as well.
Persistent physical symptoms not explained by structural abnormalities or disease processes: a primary care approach [..] recovery, 2026, Abrahamsen+
- Thread starter forestglip
- Start date
He's the corresponding author, actually. He now seems embedded in Scandinavian delusional thinking and perhaps is scuba-diving even now off the Norwegian fjords.
Last edited by a moderator:
Jonathan Edwards
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Is there an Oscar for Scandi-woof-brrr-noir? (principal playactor)
John Mac
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Trial By Error: Claims Built on Fraudulent Trials Should Be Ignored | Virology Blog
By David Tuller, DrPH When researchers cite fraudulent studies in support of their claims, it is best not to take anything they write at face value. That is ...
virology.ws
"When researchers cite fraudulent studies in support of their claims, it is best not to take anything they write at face value. That is certainly the case with a recent paper titled “Persistent physical symptoms not explained by structural abnormalities or disease processes: a primary care approach to promote recovery,” published earlier this month in the Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. (I use “fraudulent” here not in the legal sense but in the sense of “deceptive” or “deceitful.”)
As evidence of something or other, the paper’s references include both the fraudulent PACE trial, whose reported findings have been discredited and rejected by leading medical authorities, and a fraudulent pediatric trial of the Lightning Process, in which the investigators violated core methodological principles of scientific research. (The Lightning Process, a woo-woo “brain retraining” program, was created by osteopath and former spiritual healer Phil Parker, who once claimed to be able to diagnose people’s ailments by stepping into their bodies for a look-see.)"
Last edited by a moderator:
NelliePledge
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Since they’re into renaming(rebranding) I’ve done it for them - Persistent Psychologising Stupidity
Trial By Error: Claims Built on Fraudulent Trials Should Be Ignored | Virology Blog
By David Tuller, DrPH When researchers cite fraudulent studies in support of their claims, it is best not to take anything they write at face value. That is ...
When researchers cite fraudulent studies in support of their claims, it is best not to take anything they write at face value. That is certainly the case with a recent paper titled “Persistent physical symptoms not explained by structural abnormalities or disease processes: a primary care approach to promote recovery,” published earlier this month in the Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care. (I use “fraudulent” here not in the legal sense but in the sense of “deceptive” or “deceitful.”)
As evidence of something or other, the paper’s references include both the fraudulent PACE trial, whose reported findings have been discredited and rejected by leading medical authorities, and a fraudulent pediatric trial of the Lightning Process, in which the investigators violated core methodological principles of scientific research. (The Lightning Process, a woo-woo “brain retraining” program, was created by osteopath and former spiritual healer Phil Parker, who once claimed to be able to diagnose people’s ailments by stepping into their bodies for a look-see.)
Oh, thanks for posting. The Scandinavian Journal of Priimary Health Care seems to publish whatever those people send it.
Could you add "harmful" in that PPS.
Don't they have a test for PPS?
I noticed that all of the authors are identified as faculty members at the medical school in Oslo. That's obviously not the case. I mean, at least one, Becca Kennedy, is in Portland, Oregon, and has her own medical practice offering neuroplasticity. Why would they do that rather than list everyone's individual affiliations? I don't get it.
Utsikt
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
@The ME Inquiry Report has shared that the authors have been forced to update their COI statement. I still think it leaves out a lot of COIs, but it’s an improvement.
themeinquiryreport.com
New declarations:
Flottorp has left out her appearing as an expert witness for NAV in the recent court case where she argued for a BPS approach to ME/CFS, which she presumably was compensated for.
If anyone have the energy, it would be amusing to force the authors to make yet another correction to their declarations..
Oslokonsortiet tvingas ange intressekonflikt i rättelse
Nu har Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care publicerat en rättelse angående intressedeklarationen i en av de två artiklar jag tidigare har skrivit om. Länkar till vidare läsning hittar du lä…
themeinquiryreport.com
New declarations:
Flottorp has left out her appearing as an expert witness for NAV in the recent court case where she argued for a BPS approach to ME/CFS, which she presumably was compensated for.
If anyone have the energy, it would be amusing to force the authors to make yet another correction to their declarations..
Then again, this stuff is wildly popular and changing the people in charge would be statistically very unlikely to change that.
Having Liira as coordinator of the LC EU Horizon Project is a total insult, though, equivalent to having HIV deniers in charge of an AIDS program, but that's also very common. It almost seems to be a requirement, but this stuff being as popular as it is, it's like finding that most European scientists in the 18th century are likely to be Christian.
Last edited:
JellyBabyKid
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
Very late to this thread but PG has just posted this paper in response to the Alan Levinovitz WIRED article (thread here https://s4me.info/threads/wired-magazine-the-painful-truth-about-long-covid.50481/post-698801)
I came here to say;
So my symptoms are considered to be a habit or an addiction?! Really?
I came here to say;
And
So, medical misogyny and healing from a post viral condition is the same as...giving up smoking
So my symptoms are considered to be a habit or an addiction?! Really?
JellyBabyKid
Senior Member (Voting Rights)
This paper refers to use of books, online resources, and patient testimonials, plus (expensive) subscription apps as being helpful in this "programme of change".
Why would one need an avalanche of persuasion that this works? And when did testimonials become superior to RCTs as evidence?
Why would one need an avalanche of persuasion that this works? And when did testimonials become superior to RCTs as evidence?