Search results

I think adding a year to that sentence could help with regard to clarity? "In [year] I had sight of another version..."

Continued from above. Now being moderately to severely affected I find it difficult to disentangle which symptoms are just due to a random fluctuation in my disproportional physical and cognitive fatigability and which are 'real' PEM, as I feel very sick almost all the time, but still exert...

Apologies, just skimming, only have read the last two posts since I last checked. So maybe redundant. Agree both that PEM probably works best as a placeholder (like the term ME/CFS) for now and that it needs to be described and investigated better. What I think is an misconception is that...

Not sure whether it's OK to further comment before we know the committee's take on this project, but also not sure whether I will be able to comment then, so just leave that here now: Copied from another thread: Sounds very good. I was wondering if in addition to 'easy' factual references...

I find it helpful to have a look at others' explanations to get a clearer sense both what could make sense to do in a similar way (i.e. structure, length, some wording?) and what should be done completely differently.

links to previous discussions on the forum: General thread on epidemiology -- discussion on prevalence e.g. here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/me-epidemiology-prevalence-and-peak-ages-of-onset.10373/page-3#post-279739 Other threads on prevalence discussions...

Yes sorry, I was meaning for having a start with #1 from that list 1. What is ME/CFS? (Symptoms, diagnosis) Edit: Maybe the first document could include just a brief mention of the first couple of following items, and at a later stage references could be added to the other info?

Huge thanks to all who started this discussion and added suggestions. Encouraging. Not able to collaborate myself currently but just a thought -- [edit] for starting with #1 from Jonathan's list in the post immediately above: I think the EMEC info and fact sheets on their website are the...

I like the name 'ME/CFS Skeptic' but having read through the comments I see the reasons for changing the handle, too. Also like "ME/CFS Science". Just a thought: Your blog isn't only about research on ME/CFS, it's about research relevant to it but also to health research in general. So if you...

Yes, probably they didn't realize. Which underscores how misleading it is. Thank you and also to those who reacted on Xitter. Yes, and they have more than 90.000 followers on X. Many German-speaking physiotherapists, including those teaching at colleges, seem to like what they have to offer.

Not sure -- I remember vaguely that adding an editorial note/ a link to the EiC's announcement was an idea proposed by forum people? I think the version history is right that it was not added before February 2020. Also if you look at the version history between the updates there were a few...

Struggling with following the news on this -- just saw that obvious error on the '2024' review's abstract on Pubmed abstract where they added: Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01512342. Which is this trial: Pacing Activity Self-management for Patients With Chronic Fatigue Syndrome...

So some people (edit: or AI) seem to be keen to sell the review as 'new' on Xitter https://cochrane.altmetric.com/details/172238673/twitter

@Jonathan Edwards did you see there's also another reply to one of your replies? Thought it would be interesting to see if / how the mentioned research on LC has been discussed on S4ME: https://www.qeios.com/read/42YNT3 Not able to follow the discussion here at the moment, but am happy to...

Apologies for just popping in. There's a new review by another 'highly-cited researcher' -- and it seems to me @Hutan 's new thread reviewing research on Cortisol in ME/CFS came just in time. Review by George P. Chrousos: https://doi.org/10.32388/5QVYMU Wikipedia page on the reviewer...

Exactly. From the the IAG website: So new research was seen as an issue only "in addition". Full transparency of who's responsible for the rejection of the protocol and this outcome's spurious 'explanation' I think is a legitimate request . Edit: quote

Another review -- by Ruud Raijmakers, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands https://www.qeios.com/read/W3Q720 "Without agreeing or disagreeing with the claims that were made, I tried to offer some counterclaims/queries to spark a scientific discussion." Just picking out...

According to the Reuters piece Gerade referred to in her Tweet I think Cochrane hadn't announced anything but the review authors themselves reached out to Reuters / journalist Kate Kelland

Didn't add the link to the Reuters piece (see screenshot) quoting Blakemore as it doesn't work anymore. (Now edited) S4ME thread thread on article and quotes here. Blakemore quotes from that thread: "Colin Blakemore, a professor of neuroscience and philosophy at London University’s School...

Just stumbled across that post quoted elsewhere on the forum and thought saving a screenshot of the linked tweet of Clare Gerada could be useful: "withdrawal decision sets a worrying precedent for scientific evidence being over-ridden by the opinions of activists. (Colin Blakemore). > sad we...