Search results

Google AI says this: If they did the same first, the five the highlight here might have been cherry picked.

I think most people will understand solution as «fixing the disease», and not think much about how you’d go about doing that. I just want them to understand that we need to work on it.

I see things like «we provide the ultimate green solutions for you» all the time, so I think solution is okay as long as we avoid the word final.

Maybe «solution»? I agree that it asks for help without defining what the help should look like, which is something I generally don’t like. Maybe it’s impossible to get it right in this format or this particular message, so it should be addressed on its own. ME/CFS devastates millions. It has...

Only in the sense that I don’t understand what «the art of» means in this context. Someone trying to do critical thinking aren’t doing science if they clearly don’t know how to do critical thinking. Mistakes happen from time to time, but if widespread and substantial mistakes are the norm we’re...

ME/CFS devastates the lives of millions. It has no treatments. Help us find an answer. Help us until then. If we want to make it a plea for help, repeating «help us» at the end might be one way to do it. If we want it even shorter, this might be something: ME/CFS devastates lives. It has no...

As I tried to explain above, if you want others to spend time on your ideas rather than their own, I’m fairly certain they’ll want to be able to understand it. If you dismiss understanding as irrelevant, I suspect you’ll continue having a hard time gaining any traction. I think we’ve seen too...

Sounds like it will risk spreading misinformation even more efficiently because people will not be checking the sources properly.

So the suggestions so far are (the first three lines seem to be approved of): ME/CFS devastates the lives of millions. It has no treatments. Help us look for them. Patients need support until then. / We need support until then. / People with ME/CFS need support until then. Thinking more about...

Thank you for clarifying, and I also apologise for my harsh tone. If you replaced «this is pseudoscience» by «this position is untenable if you apply critical thinking», you’d probably get a good approximation of the general use of the word. There might not be one crystal clear line, but if...

That should probably be the main criteria: the lowest probability to end up with BPS or checkbox-healthcare. I took «we» to mean «pwME/CFS and their advocates, depending on the context». I was hoping it could be adopted by the associations etc., but maybe starting with S4ME is more realistic...

I just jumped to advocacy because we probably need to convince them before they’ll start saying it back to us. So sorry for hijacking!

Thank you! ME/CFS devastates the lives of millions. It has no treatments. Help us look for them. We need care/support until we find them. If anything else should be added, more women than men, and also affects children are a couple of candidates. I tried swapping support for care because I...

If it’s supposed to be a communications strategy, it it might have to be phrased differently: ME/CFS has no treatments. Help us look for them. We need support until we find them. I’ve chosen to focus on treatments because that’s the end goal, and knowledge about the disease mechanisms alone...

@hallmarkOvME you have not in any way justified why you think this question is relevant to discuss in relation to someone using the phrase «pseudoscience» in plain language discussions on S4ME. You have asserted that it’s problematic (edit: because it supposedly kills discussions), but never...

There is no way to know beforehand if research will pan out the way one hope it will. All exploration involves prioritisation, going down one path over all the others. The reasons for picking that path might be reasonable and logically sound, but still lead to a dead end. That does not imply the...

Reasons for answering yes, off the top of my head: Insomnia. A physically demanding job, not moving enough on a daily basis. Anxiety. This is normal. Ask any dentist. This is normal. Being disabled. Migraines. MS, Parkinson, low fitness. Unknown. Poor sleep. UTI Same as #1. Sleep...

Why not? If it is true, it would place some convenient and informative constraints on the speculations.

In the response by the author of the paper: Yet, the treatment the authors proposes in the paper targets 2) explicit self-efficacies, 2) maladaptive exertion avoidance, and 3) suboptimal coping and recovery strategies: So while the author might not have used «insincerity», the suggested...

Found this quote there, re @Yann04 above