The i newspaper: CFS how online abuse is halting research

I took a look at that link but couldn't find it, not in the thumbnails at the bottom nor even by doing a search. Strange, could it have been removed (she asked hopefully)?
 
Is it usual for the I to pick up stories two weeks late and a week after anyone else? Presumably this is a straight syndication, but it would be interesting to see whether it has incorporated amendments to the initial version.

The i isn't on the usual list of SMC suspects, is it? Makes one wonder who we have yet to hear from.

EDIT having said that I suspect that a former science editor of the Independent was involved with them.
 
Interesting. So far as I can see the original article was amended to include a reference to @dave30th 's article being hosted by a Columbia University website. Reference to this seems to have disappeared. One would not want to give any impression of wider support.

Where@s that Reuters' Handbook of Journalism, again?

EDIT the implication seems to be that it's ok to mention where the work is published if one can seek to diminish its value by insinuating that it was on the website of a university colleague. If it is shown that it is on an external, objective and valued site then it is better not to mention it. Wouldn't wish to add to the credibility.
 
Last edited:
Disgraceful this concerted campaign of abuse of pwme continues.

Just had a heartbreaking email from a severely affected pwme, ill since teens in early 80s, isolated with no friends, living alone on benefits after parents died, disbelieving family and neighbours, unhelpful struggling care company.
She is in despair after seeing this, having tried GET and CBT years ago but they all blame her for not recovering, and she has to face alone family, neighbours and carers with their views further hardened by this campaign.
And this is just one pwme among so many.

I do wonder if the perpetrators of this media campaign ever give a thought to the untold suffering they cause.
 
Wonko said:
Of course they do - that's the point of them doing it.
Click to expand...
Haha! Wonko, no!...

I don’t think that’s quite true. They’re not sadists trying to inflict pain on vulnerable individuals.

The problem is they don’t think about anyone other than themselves. It’s all a bit me, me, me and not enough M.E.

The charges are that they’re egotistical, narcissistic and lacking empathy or insight into the effect of their actions on others. They’re not intentionally setting out to hurt people, they just don’t particularly care.
 
There is a new section that wasn't in the original piece I've quoted it below. Does anyone know which piece of research they are referring to in the passage?

There are at least 50 specialist chronic fatigue syndrome services in the UK that treat around 8,000 adults each year under government guidelines, offering behavioural and psychological therapies. Research published in July 2017 showed around a third of adults affected by the illness who attended these specialist clinics reported substantial improvement in their health.
Click to expand...
 
Just found the piece of research myself its this one:

Specialist treatment of chronic fatigue syndrome/ME: a cohort study among adult patients in England Simon M Collin* and Esther Crawley

Abstract
Background: NHS specialist chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS/ME) services in England treat approximately 8000 adult patients each year. Variation in therapy programmes and treatment outcomes across services has not been described.

Methods: We described treatments provided by 11 CFS/ME specialist services and we measured changes in patientreported fatigue (Chalder, Checklist Individual Strength), function (SF-36 physical subscale, Work & Social Adjustment Scale), anxiety and depression (Hospital Anxiety & Depression Scale), pain (visual analogue rating), sleep (Epworth, Jenkins), and overall health (Clinical Global Impression) 1 year after the start of treatment, plus questions about impact of CFS/ME on employment, education/training and domestic tasks/unpaid work. A subset of these outcome measures was collected from former patients 2–5 years after assessment at 7 of the 11 specialist services.

Results: Baseline data at clinical assessment were available for 952 patients, of whom 440 (46.2%) provided 1-year follow-up data. Treatment data were available for 435/440 (98.9%) of these patients, of whom 175 (40.2%) had been discharged at time of follow-up. Therapy programmes varied substantially in mode of delivery (individual or group) and number of sessions. Overall change in health 1 year after first attending specialist services was ‘very much’ or ‘much better’ for 27.5% (115/418) of patients, ‘a little better’ for 36.6% (153/418), ‘no change’ for 15.8% (66/418), ‘a little worse’ for 12.2% (51/418), and ‘worse’ or ‘very much worse’ for 7.9% (33/418). Among former patients who provided 2- to 5-year follow-up (30.4% (385/1265)), these proportions were 30.4% (117/385), 27.5% (106/385), 11.4% (44/385), 13.5% (52/385), and 17.1% (66/385), respectively. 85.4% (327/383) of former patients responded “Yes” to “Do you think that you are still suffering from CFS/ME?” 8.9% (34/383) were “Uncertain”, and 5.7% (22/383) responded “No”.

Conclusions: This multi-centre NHS study has shown that, although one third of patients reported substantial overall improvement in their health, CFS/ME is a long term condition that persists for the majority of adult patients even after receiving specialist treatment. Keywords: Chronic fatigue syndrome, ME, NHS England, Specialist care
Click to expand...
 
fivetowns said:
There is a new section that wasn't in the original piece I've quoted it below. Does anyone know which piece of research they are referring to in the passage?
Click to expand...


That was in there:

In Britain there are at least 50 specialist chronic fatigue syndrome services that treat around 8,000 adults each year under government guidelines, offering behavioral and psychological therapies. Research published in July 2017 showed around a third of adults affected by the illness who attended these specialist clinics reported substantial improvement in their health.
Click to expand...

http://archive.fo/V9WTA#selection-713.0-713.372
 
fivetowns said:
There is a new section that wasn't in the original piece I've quoted it below. Does anyone know which piece of research they are referring to in the passage?
Click to expand...

That was in an early amendment published by Reuters which included the original correction about Columbia University, so it is not specific to the I article.
 
chrisb said:
That was in an early amendment published by Reuters which included the original correction about Columbia University, so it is not specific to the I article.
Click to expand...

I think that the section @fivetowns quoted was always in there (with the slight edit made for the more UK-centric the I), which was not related to the 'correction' removing information about where Tuller's work was released.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom