Protocol The Context of Recovery Among Adults Who Recover from [ME/CFS & LC] Following Mind-Body Approaches: A Qualitative…, 2026, Cordovani, Zeraatkar, Busse+

Chandelier

Chandelier

Senior Member (Voting Rights)
The Context of Recovery Among Adults Who Recover from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Post-COVID Condition Following Mind-Body Approaches: A Qualitative Descriptive Study Protocol

Cordovani, Ligia; Almazyad, Lujain; Zeraatkar, Dena; Busse, Jason W

Abstract
Background
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and post-COVID condition are complex, debilitating illnesses characterized by persistent fatigue and post-exertional malaise. Recovery is uncommon without targeted intervention; however, emerging clinical reports suggest that a subset of patients experience full resolution of symptoms after engaging in mind-body approaches. Patient perspectives on these interventions are divided, and qualitative evidence exploring successful recovery pathways is rare. This protocol outlines a study to investigate the contextual factors and patient-constructed explanations surrounding full recovery from ME/CFS or post-COVID condition using mind-body approaches.

Methods and analysis
We will employ a qualitative descriptive design rooted in a constructivist paradigm. Purposive and snowball sampling will be used to recruit approximately 20 adults from established infection-associated fatigue networks who self-report full recovery (lasting three months or more) from ME/CFS or post-COVID condition following a mind-body approach. Data will be collected through semi-structured interviews conducted via Zoom, and investigator reflexivity will be reported. Demographic information, including comorbidities, will be documented to contextualize the sample. Data will be analyzed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. To ensure research rigor and reporting transparency, the study will adhere to the 15-point checklist of criteria for good thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke.

Dissemination
We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal and present at relevant academic conferences. A lay summary of the results will also be shared directly with participating patient recovery networks.

Web | DOI | medRxiv | Open Access
 
Chandelier said:
Purposive and snowball sampling will be used to recruit approximately 20 adults from established infection-associated fatigue networks who self-report full recovery (lasting three months or more) from ME/CFS or post-COVID condition following a mind-body approach.
Click to expand...

In other words "We will go out in the snow and gather up as biased a load of data as we can find and ensure that the bias is really strong by rolling it down the hill until it has gathered up more and more bias."
 
Chandelier said:
The Context of Recovery Among Adults Who Recover from Myalgic Encephalomyelitis/Chronic Fatigue Syndrome and Post-COVID Condition Following Mind-Body Approaches: A Qualitative Descriptive Study Protocol

Cordovani, Ligia; Almazyad, Lujain; Zeraatkar, Dena; Busse, Jason W

Abstract
Background
Myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS) and post-COVID condition are complex, debilitating illnesses characterized by persistent fatigue and post-exertional malaise. Recovery is uncommon without targeted intervention; however, emerging clinical reports suggest that a subset of patients experience full resolution of symptoms after engaging in mind-body approaches. Patient perspectives on these interventions are divided, and qualitative evidence exploring successful recovery pathways is rare. This protocol outlines a study to investigate the contextual factors and patient-constructed explanations surrounding full recovery from ME/CFS or post-COVID condition using mind-body approaches.

Methods and analysis
We will employ a qualitative descriptive design rooted in a constructivist paradigm. Purposive and snowball sampling will be used to recruit approximately 20 adults from established infection-associated fatigue networks who self-report full recovery (lasting three months or more) from ME/CFS or post-COVID condition following a mind-body approach. Data will be collected through semi-structured interviews conducted via Zoom, and investigator reflexivity will be reported. Demographic information, including comorbidities, will be documented to contextualize the sample. Data will be analyzed inductively using reflexive thematic analysis. To ensure research rigor and reporting transparency, the study will adhere to the 15-point checklist of criteria for good thematic analysis proposed by Braun and Clarke.

Dissemination
We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal and present at relevant academic conferences. A lay summary of the results will also be shared directly with participating patient recovery networks.

Web | DOI | medRxiv | Open Access
Click to expand...

'We will publish our findings in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal and present at relevant academic conferences. A lay summary of the results will also be shared directly with participating patient recovery networks.'
 
All the authors are from McMaster University e.g. Jason Busse.

They really are going all in, presumably supported by the insurance industry. I get the impression that they have realised that CBT and GET are damaged goods, so they are offering the shiny new thing of brain retraining. They don't care what it is, so long as it perpetuates the idea that people who don't recover have chosen that outcome.
 
Chandelier said:
From the Abstract:
“Recovery is uncommon without targeted intervention; however, emerging clinical reports suggest that a subset of patients experience full resolution of symptoms after engaging in mind-body approaches.”
Click to expand...

I am not sure I believe it is true that recovery is more common with rather than without targeted intervention, the introduction in the preprint says:

Some ME/CFS patients report gradual improvement over time, but without targeted intervention full recovery is achieved in approximately 5% of cases [15]. Full recovery from post-COVID condition in general has been estimated at 7.6% [16]. However, a third of individuals report >75% recovery with specialized care [18]. Emerging clinical reports of recovery have surfaced from individuals who engaged in mind-body such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Pain Reprocessing Therapy (PRT), and the Lightning Process (LP) [17-23]. These approaches aim to modulate central processes hypothesized to sustain chronic symptoms, including heightened threat perception, symptom hypervigilance, and dysregulation of the autonomic nervous system [10].

A living systematic review of interventions for long COVID found moderate-certainty evidence that CBT likely reduces fatigue and improves concentration and that combined physical and mental health rehabilitation likely improves overall health and reduces depressive symptoms[24]. Additionally, a meta-analysis of individual patient data from eight trials that enrolled 1,298 participants with ME/CFS reported reductions in fatigue, functional impairment, and physical limitations after CBT-based interventions [25]. However, some patients report resistance to mind-body approaches, in part because of concerns that such interventions trivialize or psychologize their symptoms [26].
Click to expand...
(My bolding)

A ‘>75% recovery’ is a very strange way of describing describing a third, but the source for this is given as

Prashar J, Hillman T, Wall EC, Kahan BC, Engmann J, Chesney E, et al. Trajectory, Healthcare Utilisation and Recovery in 3590 Individuals With Long Covid: A 4-Year Prospective Cohort Analysis. BMJ Open. 2026;16(1)

This was effectively a service audit with no control, making no identification of PEM so making no distinction between Long Covid without PEM and Covid triggered ME/CFS. Given the heterogeneity of Long Covid it is not clear that this source has any relevance to a proposed study that uses ME/CFS and Long Covid interchangeably. Prashar et al also used a concept of functional recovery which requires more break down. We have a thread for this study here. I certainly do not feel it demonstrates what Cordivani et al claim, though presumably they only cite it to set up how much more effective brain training is going to be.

[edited to correct typos and to add - sorry the 75% relates to the degree of recovery, so the study found only partial recovery in a third of their service users.]
 
Last edited:
The abstract is from a preprint, not an official registration of a protocol. It says they have registered the protocol, can anyone find it. I want to know who is funding it.

Busse is also running a clinical trial of LP, thread here:
Thread
We didn't find who is funding that either.
 
Trish said:
The abstract is from a preprint, not an official registration of a protocol. It says they have registered the protocol, can anyone find it. I want to know who is funding it.

Busse is also running a clinical trial of LP, thread here:
Thread
We didn't find who is funding that either.
Click to expand...
I tried to find a registered protocol back when I posted this and wasn't able to.
AI says the following:
This particular study does not appear to require clinical-trial registration under the usual WHO/ICMJE definition, because it does not prospectively assign participants to a health-related intervention.

The protocol describes interviews with adults who have already recovered after using a mind–body approach. The researchers are not assigning participants to receive that approach, randomizing them, or evaluating an intervention’s effect. That makes it a qualitative observational study, not a clinical trial.

The relevant standards support this distinction:

  • WHO defines a clinical trial as researchthat prospectively assigns people to oneor more health-related interventions toevaluate health outcomes.World Health Organization (WHO)
  • ICMJE says purely observational studiesdo not require registration, althoughregistration of non-trial research isencouraged. icmje.org1
  • Health Canada’s clinical-trial drugregulations explicitly excludeobservational studies that do not involve adrug intervention. Government of Canada
Therefore, the most accurate conclusion is:

Clinical-trial registration is not generally required for this protocol because it is observational and qualitative, not interventional.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Trish said:
Busse is also running a clinical trial of LP, thread here:
Thread
We didn't find who is funding that either.
Click to expand...
I can't find any more information on that either.
However, he prides himself on:


Dr. Busse has published over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles, and been awarded over $70M in research funding.

​

Overview​

Dr. Jason Busse is the Chair of the CLARITY Research Group and a Professor in the Departments of Anesthesia and Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University. He is the Associate Chair of Research for the Department of Anesthesia, Director of the Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, and Associate Director of the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research. Dr. Busse has published over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles, and been awarded over $70M in research funding.

Areas of Research Interest​

Dr. Busse’s research is focussed on the prevention and management of chronic pain, with specific focus on the role of opioids and medicinal cannabis, as well as veterans who live with chronic pain, and chronic fatigue syndrome and related disorders.

Training​

Dr. Busse has completed a BHSc in microbiology and an MSc in molecular and medical genetics at the University of Toronto, a Doctor of Chiropractic at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, and a PhD in in Design, Management, and Evaluation (currently known as the Health Research Methodology program) at McMaster University. Dr. Busse has also completed training in cognitive behavioural therapy through the Clinical Behavioural Sciences Programme at McMaster University.
Click to expand...
www.clarityresearch.ca

Clarity

CLARITY represents the formal alliance of a group of researchers who have enjoyed a long-standing and fruitful collaboration. Through formal collaboration, Clarity's clinical advances through research and information translation has been pivotal in creating a renewed sense of spirit, vision and comm
www.clarityresearch.ca www.clarityresearch.ca
 
This is reminiscent of the whole Prof Crawley ethical approval debacle where she used an exemption of ethical approval for a clinical audit to avoid ethical scrutiny for a whole series of unambiguously experimental studies.

I don’t know if the situation in the US is different to the UK, but if they are issuing a call out for subjects this is nothing like a clinical audit. That fact that this is not an experimental design but rather a biased selection of self selected volunteers after the fact means that it will tell us nothing of clinical relevance and nothing about what might distinguish participants who claim recovery from an ambiguous previous condition from unrecovered patients with confirmed Long Covid or ME/CFS. Not even a case history series, rather a collection of uninterpretable anecdotes. This is effectively a repeat of the terrible recent Goldsmiths narration (I will not distinguish that with even the epitaph of ‘study’).

However if they are recruiting new people and developing a new protocol to implement with them, either it is not science but biased journalism or surely it should require some form of ethical oversight.

[edited to correct typos]
 
Last edited:
Peter T said:
Not even a case history series, rather a collection of uninterpretable anecdotes. This is effectively a repeat of the terrible recent Goldsmiths narration (I will not distinguish that with even the epitaph of ‘study’).
Click to expand...
This feels very much like post-truth science.
It's not about asking and investigating questions anymore, it's about producing an pre-determined artifact to
The Abstract said:
...publish our findings in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal and present at relevant academic conferences. A lay summary of the results will also be shared directly with participating patient recovery networks.
Click to expand...
 
Concentric_Spiral said:
As a "Doctor of Chiropractic", Busse sounds ultra qualified to discover how to treat ME/CFS.
Click to expand...
I challenge you to find the word "Chiropractic" in his description:
Chandelier said:

Overview​

Dr. Jason Busse is the Chair of the CLARITY Research Group and a Professor in the Departments of Anesthesia and Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University. He is the Associate Chair of Research for the Department of Anesthesia, Director of the Michael G. DeGroote National Pain Centre, and Associate Director of the Michael G. DeGroote Centre for Medicinal Cannabis Research. Dr. Busse has published over 400 peer-reviewed journal articles, and been awarded over $70M in research funding.

Areas of Research Interest​

Dr. Busse’s research is focussed on the prevention and management of chronic pain, with specific focus on the role of opioids and medicinal cannabis, as well as veterans who live with chronic pain, and chronic fatigue syndrome and related disorders.

Training​

Dr. Busse has completed a BHSc in microbiology and an MSc in molecular and medical genetics at the University of Toronto, a Doctor of Chiropractic at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, and a PhD in in Design, Management, and Evaluation (currently known as the Health Research Methodology program) at McMaster University. Dr. Busse has also completed training in cognitive behavioural therapy through the Clinical Behavioural Sciences Programme at McMaster University.
Click to expand...
 
The sheer amount of lying in this "study" shows that standards in the industry have reached rock bottom. They might fall further, I trust them on that, but it won't make a material difference.
Recovery is uncommon without targeted intervention
Click to expand...
Full recovery from post-COVID condition in general has been estimated at 7.6%
Click to expand...
The fact that they can write this not only after years of studies showing that full recovery is the norm, early on, but that it's the main reason for the complete indifference of the medical profession. Most recover, so they don't care, and are content with leaving those who don't to rot. But they can write down this lie knowing with certainty that they will get away with it. This doesn't even make them look bad, it makes the whole industry look incompetent and corrupt.
Hutan said:
They really are going all in, presumably supported by the insurance industry. I get the impression that they have realised that CBT and GET are damaged goods, so they are offering the shiny new thing of brain retraining. They don't care what it is, so long as it perpetuates the idea that people who don't recover have chosen that outcome.
Click to expand...
Clearly not:
Emerging clinical reports of recovery have surfaced from individuals who engaged in mind-body such as Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), Pain Reprocessing Therapy (PRT), and the Lightning Process (LP)
Click to expand...
I don't see any difference between CBT and LP. Neither do the people who cosplay as experts on both. There really isn't, not anymore than there are differences between various astrological traditions.

Plus the fact that for decades everything was made to be about deconditioning, and now that it's been debunked, it doesn't even matter. People keep saying it anyway, as convenient, while also ignoring it and the fact that it was a very explicit assertion, made against evidence. This is simply not a serious discipline, not when this clown show is operating front and center.

Facts have completely ceased to matter here. As AI is entering its accelerated rate of improvement, medicine's rapid enshittification rate is also kicking in high gear. Meanwhile 100% of medicine's achievements, which continue apace, remain firmly rooted in biology, but the giant pile of hallucinogenic cocaine is just too powerful to resist. It's pretty much becoming impossible to trust expert opinion, it clearly has little value of its own. Only results matter, and this is why AI is taking over the world: it delivers.
 
How long is the cycle?

They get people to do a brain train, it works a bit then fails, or it doesn’t work, or the people recover.

Then word starts to leak out that it’s unhelpful and expensive and it doesn’t work and it’s a scam. Public consciousness gets wise to it.

The numbers reduce and it’s inevitably written off as quackery.

5 maybe 10 years? As long as it may take us to discover the disease and identify drugs?
 
Trish said:
That is a scarily huge waste of money.
Click to expand...
It's impressive that Professor Jason Busse can publish such unscientific crap without repercussions.
I imagine a big private funder would be very interested to learn that such absymal research is being produced with their money.
Unless, of course, the mind-body mafia is funding this themselves.
But even then, funders of other projects at McMaster should become worried if they knew about it.
It's fascinating how such self-correcting measures seem to fail here completely.
 
Peter T said:
However if they are recruiting new people and developing a new protocol to implement with them, either it is not science but biased journalism or surely it should require some form of ethical oversight.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, the ethics system is rather broken. The focus is on whether the people in the trial are at risk of harm, not on whether the trial could produce false findings that could harm everyone with the disease.

Concentric_Spiral said:
As a "Doctor of Chiropractic", Busse sounds ultra qualified to discover how to treat ME/CFS.
Click to expand...
Dr. Busse has completed a BHSc in microbiology and an MSc in molecular and medical genetics at the University of Toronto, a Doctor of Chiropractic at the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, and a PhD in in Design, Management, and Evaluation (currently known as the Health Research Methodology program) at McMaster University. Dr. Busse has also completed training in cognitive behavioural therapy through the Clinical Behavioural Sciences Programme at McMaster University.
Click to expand...
I think the thing is, Busse and others at McMasters University are very experienced and qualified in producing research that gives entities that pay well the authoritative evidence they need. See how he is qualified in health research methodology? When he deviates away from good research practice, that is a choice, done for particular ends. And, he knows cognitive behavioural training - I guess that helps in knowing exactly how to persuade people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom