Search results

It means going beyond "maybe this could happen" to confirming that it does happen or alternatively disproving that it could be what's happening. What happens inside living cells is extremely important, but it can be very hard to study.

I think it's a potential piece of the puzzle which has been presumed to happen before in one theory of autoimmunity, but not actually observed as it happens. This is what Wikipedia says about the method used to detect the escaping DNA: Mitochondrial DNA is of particular interest in regard to...

http://sci-hub.tw/http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp-2016-314080 It's a case study involving 3 patients, without much more detail than is in the abstract. Technical details of study funding and such are at the end:

No doubt a perfectly innocent Dutch colloquialism ... but I prefer to interpret them as having (or being) big asses :cool:

An exception might be made if there is an official investigation of fraud. Though that would presumably be done by parties appointed by a court or other authority, or under the direction of lawyers party to a lawsuit, subject to strict confidentiality requirements regarding identifiable details...

It would be a serious ethical violation and probably a legal one as well, to alter or deliberately omit things. Basically the consequences would stop them from doing it, similar to why they won't tell a lie under oath. It would be an end of their careers.

Excellent work, @Lou Corsius! The translation is pretty comprehensible already. Though the guest "Short shot" is actually Jeroen Kortschot.

Reading and thinking is hard work! Spouting opinions is so easy that any idiot can do it, as Gunderson is thoughtfully demonstrating :rolleyes:

It might be easier to just bring down the mental health Cochrane group, especially in specific regards to ME/CFS. The various Cochrane groups seem to act with fairly little oversight, so most of the blame can land on that one in particular without bringing the wider Cochrane brand into the...

Yes, exactly. It's also combined with some severe methodological problems which make it very unlikely that there was any statistical significance at all.

The other issue is that the Cochrane mental health group which lays claim to ME/CFS was co-founded by Simon Wessely. Some members of the group likely continue to have a vested interest in the outcomes of their own reviews (CBT/GET clinics and/or insurance ties), and I also suspect that Wessely...

It's not even that. It's just convincing patients to stop complaining about their symptoms or going to the doctor. If it was aimed at coping they wouldn't be calling it recovery, or essentially denying that there is a disease at all.

Full text is at https://sci-hub.tw/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2018.01.007 These are Belgian quacks, primarily from Leuven. So the real test is how long it takes patients to recover from breathing in an elevated amount of carbon dioxide, after they return to breathing normal air...

A lot of it looks good. Some of it looks awful: This one's been firmly in the "central" camp thus far, despite the ambiguous title: This one seems to be a quack of some sort, apparently a mix of BPS and other sorts of woo. She also seems to have gotten lost on her way to a fatigue...

That's a lot better than starting with fatigue ... and I like the emphasis on "ability" rather than just doing less.

You're right - it would also make far more sense to use an infection which is commonly accepted as a trigger for ME/CFS. EBV is one, but that would basically equate to a standard healthy control. In fact, why not just use standard healthy controls in general, if the purpose is to compare us with...

Not really. Their theory seems to be that thoughts alter the physiology, and that the physiology can be returned to normal with therapy. It's not clear what therapy would be. Other papers the same authors are currently involved with involve magnetic and sound stimulation of the brain :confused...

I still want to know who wanted the functional (psychosomatic) control group, and why it was initially included.

Basically another central sensitization theory - definitely psychosocial. And combined with an apparent determination to keep using Oxford criteria while the researchers happily rot in their remote little cave, cut off from the rest of society :rolleyes: No, it isn't characterized by fatigue...

So stay-home-and-die therapy "works"? :-P But on the plus side, most of the dinosaurs pushing these interventions are old enough to soon be a victim of any success that they have in selling these treatments.