Useful arguments regarding the evidence provided by psychological and biomedical ME research?

Not up to word a good short argument -- so today just leave this here as an example of how evidence-free BPS proponents in the field of ME and other medically not yet explained illnesses use to present their 'expertise':

@Adam pwme on Twitter: "Trudie Chalder (PACE trial) is training health professionals on Long Covid. Describes Post Exertional Malaise as "Health anxiety" and an "Extreme behavioural response" states "Exercise is clearly not damaging" and recommends "Increasing exercise"

https://t.co/BdQjamsrVB

Click to expand...


Edit:
Adam pwme said:
Transcript

https://www.s4me.info/attachments/chalder-transcript-docx.13941/
Click to expand...

Adam pwme said:
The video was taken down

https://doctorswith.me/health-educa...fter-scientific-evidence-supports-complaints/
Click to expand...

Thank you @Adam pwme
 
Last edited:
MSEsperanza said:
Not up to word a good short argument -- so today just leave this here as an example of how evidence-free BPS proponents in the field of ME and other medically not yet explained illnesses use to present their 'expertise':

@Adam pwme on Twitter: "Trudie Chalder (PACE trial) is training health professionals on Long Covid. Describes Post Exertional Malaise as "Health anxiety" and an "Extreme behavioural response" states "Exercise is clearly not damaging" and recommends "Increasing exercise"

https://t.co/BdQjamsrVB



[memo for me: 1) Check if there's a transcript in Chalder related thread / add link --2) Has the video been taken down from the official website?]
Click to expand...

The video was taken down

https://doctorswith.me/health-educa...fter-scientific-evidence-supports-complaints/

I think there was a transcript, I can't remember though.
 
Just thought I'll add this pseudo-rebuttal of the problem with only subjective endpoints in open-label treatment trials here

MSEsperanza said:
The IQWIG replied (machine translation by deepl) :

2.1.4 Appreciation of comments on section 3.4 'Non-pharmaceutical therapeutic interventions'.

"The fact that many symptoms can only be recorded subjectively is also not a disadvantage because ultimately only the patient can evaluate the success of his or her own treatment. If a person learns to rate his or her own symptoms as less severe or threatening, then this can be seen as a genuine relief, since here too it is the subjective patient perspective alone that counts. Overall, therefore, no need for change to the methods paper is seen on this point." (*)

(*) Documentation and evaluation of comments on the Draft of the General Methods 6.1 (in German), https://www.iqwig.de/methoden/allgemeine-methoden_dwa-entwurf-fuer-version-6-1_v1-0.pdf
Click to expand...



Replies can be found in the quoted thread, but if anyone felt up to post a good short reply here, that would be much appreciated.

Note that we have several discussion threads on suggested measures that could mitigate the problem (objective/ combined tools for assessing improvement and deterioration from non-blindable treatments for ME/CFS as an illnesses for which no biomarkers have been established yet).

Sorry now only able to find a members-only thread with a collection of some of the links here.

(There's also a discussion on the additional challenge that many patient organizations for other diseases don't seem to be aware of the problem and actually are in favor of subjective outcomes, also if treatments can't be blinded.)


Edited for clarity.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top