Search results

Yes. I was agreeing with you.

In other words, we need to keep the focus on where it should be: the poor quality of the discredited but somehow still dominant psycho-behavioural models.

This. We must resist the completely understandable urge to provide an alternative model to compete with the psycho-behavioural model. It is not productive and does us no favours, and we have no obligation to do so. The simple shitty reality is that very little is understood about ME/CFS and...

And shove them down our throats. 'Twas always thus. :grumpy:

I think it is a bad idea to have heroes, you will always be disappointed. But if I did have any then Barbara Ehrenreich would easily be one of them. If there were more people like her in this world it would be a much better place.

This. The LP protocol is the essence of biased methodology and unfalsifiability. It is at its core fundamentally anti-science. That said, I sadly have to agree with @dave30th that he needs to acknowledge reports from patients who claim to have recovered.

And also want endless tax cuts. There is no grift like corporate grift.

One of Oliver Sacks' encephalitis lethargica patients in Awakenings (Leonard L. ?), who responded dramatically to L-Dopa, called it something like Resurrectine. However, like all the patients who tried the drug, he soon regressed and eventually stopped taking it. You'd think that was a...

and that this relationship is stronger among cases with more severe PCC. A dose-response relationship is always good to see.

It is a waste bin diagnosis. Anything vaguely neurological-ish that they can't explain gets thrown into it.

+1 Very good article.

https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2024/05/23/lightning-process-long-covid/ Just gets worse and worse, doesn't it. :grumpy: BACME have not 'reformed' in any meaningful sense. They have rebranded and tweaked their sales pitch, and carried right on as before.

There it is.

our understanding of their mechanisms is still very limited, as well as our therapeutic efficacy for the affected patients If they still have not demonstrated adequate, reliable, and safe efficacy under strict research conditions, then they cannot be claiming effectiveness at the practical...

Sounds like, because it is. Worth repeating. This is just a turf war between the fringe and officially approved mainstream versions of pseudo-science. The underlying content is not fundamentally different.

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Exactly. How can they advise any (specific) 'treatment' at all? It is just the rehab crew trying to keep an illegitimate finger in the pie. This is the key. I suspect that ME/CFS is not inherently progressive, if managed well. Or at least not for the vast majority of patients. But when managed...

+1

Could be sensitivity. Or could be not using the appropriate measurement technique, or not using it in the right way, for the particular problem. Using the finest microscope available is pointless if you are not looking at the appropriate tissue sample, for example.

Good point.