Search results

Yes - just pulling your leg :D

It was temporarily withdrawn - you shouldn't have blinked ;)

@Wonko - perhaps the 3-1 tactic reflects a desire to raise a lump sum now - there's been comment that they need money now because they need more people working on the research now. I dunno, I've really not got a view about this fundraiser. edit - grammar and clarity

@Mij The initial focus of OMF is ME/CFS research https://www.omf.ngo/about-us/ It seems that they are intending in the future to widen the focus to other 'related chronic complex diseases'. If Lyme and Fibro are related I suppose research will one day tell. I can't see anything that...

Based on what we know so far we don't know the inclusion criteria. The information thus far is for gathering a pool of potential subjects to draw from. I suppose somebody could contact Dr Li to ask about it. eta - they could also ask if the voucher is for anywhere good ;)

You've made some points that some people could find useful so I think they were worth making. I agree with this. Personally I'm interested in encouraging research in the UK so I won't be donating to OMF. They're a large charity (in the ME world) and I don't think this fundraiser will suffer...

Except this is a forum where any member can voice concerns they might have as you have done. I would think the OP posted this in good faith and I don't think the original poster is responsible for whether or not people choose to donate. OMF are responsible for the info they give out and can be...

Funded by the Mason Foundation, looking for women with a CFS diagnosis but doesn't say what inclusion criteria they are using. Using questionnaires, saliva, and urine samples. hmmm.

Anyway, I found this: PARTICIPANT INFORMATION STATEMENT AND CONSENT FORM Ovarian hormones and symptom severity in chronic fatigue syndrome. CFS Group Dr Sophie H Li https://unswpsy.au1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_d5837GYlXvpZEVf

Useful, thanks for posting

From the reports key findings: I bet that isn't in Wessely's Mental Health Review conclusions.

I have nothing of substance to say other than that I hope your daughter can be helped.

Ditto. I've been really heartened that tweets like this are being resonded to in a measured way pointing to evidence which undermines them. A lot of the responses throughout this have been really good. edit - for clarification

Agree on the last point @Hip re: inability to control for infection transmission. Thanks for your explanation about transmissibility, it made that point clearer for me.

I don't have the brain tthink about about this at present, and it's too way too technical for me anyway, but just had one thought about Hip's virus post: Being close enough to breathe air freshly expelled by an infected person can be enough to be at risk of resp. viruses carried in saliva...

What's happening here? Is this a reference to the unpublished review we already know about or something else?:

The CDC is slippery and they want patients to trust them? Well done ME Action.

I'm not counting my chickens either, but Cochrane can't afford egg on it's face. I'm cautiously optimistic.