Search results

Apologies, not able to read again, push the 'like' buttons on all posts above and refer to the according posts I read while not being logged in but the topic on whether (neuro-)psychiatry is an apt category for ME/CFS reminded me of...

Just stumbled across this while searching for something else and thought cross-posting here was in order: A suggestion to differentiate and precisely specify diverse forms of fatigue, based on detailed symptoms monitoring (*) Fatigue often is seen as one of the most characteristic symptoms of...

Agree with what others have said about Carson's false assumptions. Still, I'm afraid I think @Chris Ponting your comment would have been even better without the bit about "... people with ME/CFS have been told it’s all in their head. It’s not: we see people’s ME/CFS in their blood." I see...

I thought it was very nice evidence on how biased Carson is and how remarkable it is that the SMC publishes such an obviously factually incorrect and logically muddled statement that looks even more silly in company with Prof Conway's expert statement. Just in case the SMC decides that's too...

From the abstract: Background: "...We compared patient-reported HRQoL among adults with COVID-19–like illness who tested SARS-CoV-2 positive (COVID+) with those who tested negative (COVID−)..." Results: "...COVID+ participants were more likely to return to the optimal HRQoL class compared to...

From another thread: Source: Vandenbroucke JP, von Elm E, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Mulrow CD, Pocock SJ, Poole C, Schlesselman JJ, Egger M; STROBE Initiative. Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE): explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2007 Oct...

The first two recently produced S4ME factsheets (see post above) to me are a big change -- they are the only ones I'm really happy to share with doctors (and everyone else) -- I think they contain nothing that makes me/ my sources of information appear untrustworthy. They also give as...

List of S4ME fact sheets available so far: Fact sheet 1: An Introduction to ME/CFS - published March 2025 Fact sheet 2: Post-exertional malaise - published May 2025 Link to fact-sheet thread: https://www.s4me.info/threads/science-for-me-fact-sheets.43310/

Only skimmed -- overall looks good. Not sure about the section on co-morbidities though: From the poster: "Recognise and manage co-morbidities that may be present." ▪ Joint Hypermobility Syndrome (JHS) ▪ Interstitial Cystitis ▪ Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) ▪ Mast Cell Activation Syndrome...

Older forum posts on SIRPA: SIRPA's startpage:

OK, that's pretty short. Just a pity that it can't count as a factual argument...

Thank you @DMissa for doing that and asking us. Also thank you to everyone who already helped. I don't have anything to add to that collection, just in case you aren't aware already of the many creative pseudo-rebuttals of forum members' assessment of the evidence / criticism of the unreliable...

Just thought I'll add this pseudo-rebuttal of the problem with only subjective endpoints in open-label treatment trials here 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...

Just would like to make people aware that this is an Elsevier journal so you can request patient access: (Maybe we could add the link to the opening posts of threads on research articles published by Elsevier?)

"Where lived experience and science meet" -- wait, what was the motto of S4ME again? That coffi party is so disingenuous, in so many ways. (The S4ME slogan is better, of course.)

Just bumping this thread in case it's useful for the work on the PEM factsheet -- apologies if you're having that on the screen already @Trish

I think it's a pity that they didn't at least acknowledge the potential gap / need for clarification in the guideline with respect to nutritional support for very severely ill pwME. So if not added there, in view of Maeve's death, here's what I think they should have considered: Management of...

Just adding this paper from 2019 here:

Yes, strictly speaking that was another review but with some of the same authors (Larun et al). I just find it hard to imagine what other version of the review Jonathan could have seen. But am easily confused these days.

Sorry for being slow on the update -- @Jonathan Edwards do you refer to the planned Individual Patient Data review here? If yes, adding the protocol to the references would be helpful I think. (It makes clear that the author group of the current review was co-authoring with the trialists on...