Search results

This is a non-issue. A weak excuse. You have a control group, so if what he is saying is correct then the effect is the same across groups. Plus of course any difference caused by treatment which would be down to the treatment.

This doesn't put my mind at rest I'm afraid. The reader doesn't go and check the facts, and in reality it is not straightforward to correct things if they are misrepresented unless you're dealing with language that can be interpreted only one way, and clear errors of fact.

I hope we don't see a misleading quote in the press at some point in the future, such as, "I've received abuse on Twitter. I had to block dozens of activists."

Harley Street Solutions said that ‘electrical sensitivities’ was not a recognized medical condition and therefore their claim to be able to treat it could not be in breach of any rules. So they offer a treatment. Then when challenged, they claim it's ok because it's not a treatment at all as...

I was put on Sertraline for stress some time back. It certainly affected my central nervous system, but instead of calming it down it sent it into overdrive. I've never been so buzzing. Sense of touch, smell, hearing, were all enhanced, but in a horrible way, it was very unpleasant. I felt like...

Well done, that effort paid off!!

Indeed, but I was really just highlighting why conflict of interests are supposed to be declared. Whether someone does in fact scrutinize the research is really a secondary matter, the primary issue is that these conflicts should be declared so that readers are presented with the relevant facts.

Of course it's a conflict. It should obviously be declared so that readers can consider to what degree the research can be trusted. Had it been declared then more people may have scrutinised the trial and noticed all its problems much sooner.

So the biggest UK charity decides to join in a global campaign but instead of picking anywhere in the UK it goes outside the UK. Bizarre. You know, if I was a cynic I might suspect this has something to do with their being resistant to criticizing anyone in the UK doing what has been happening...

I did mean the step test, but I thought a bit more about it and decided it's a non-issue because they did appropriately consider AEs from the trial regardless of whether it was part of the treatment or not.

As data from the step test was never published, in combination with the above fact, this leads me to wonder: was adverse event data associated with this part of the trial (the step test) reported still? If not then was the step test data not reported as a means of hiding associated adverse...

Glad to see that Ed Sykes is gone. His involvement made as much of a mockery of the collaborative as Esther Crawley's involvement did. The announcement does look positive. However, I am 100% reserving judgement as words are cheap whereas actions are the real deal. They've got my attention with...

You could install some sensors to measure temperature throughout the night, see how it changes and then work out how to make things more consistent throughout the night perhaps? There are some materials used in certain mattresses or duvets which claim to remove excess heat, store it then...

I have this problem, basically I found that I don't get on with a duvet, or anything else too thick. Instead I use several thin layers. A sheet as a minimum and then depending on the season I add one or more fairly thin comforters - they get called different things in different places really...

I rate Zaher Nahle very highly. I hope he is moving on to something else in ME/CFS.

Wessley as collaborator? Well that's a new revelation. Even above he forgot to mention that he had been involved in study design or something like that (I forget the exact words) which was mentioned somewhere else - in the thank you list of one of the PACE papers?

It looks excellent, and is such an important paper. It's the culmination of years and years of determination and hard work to expose the truth about PACE and those behind this deserve massive gratitude. Well done!

That is a seriously decent amount of money for research right there, very pleased indeed.

And at the most basic yet critical level - a better mattress and pillow. Can make a big difference to sleephaving the right mattress or pillow but if you can't afford even that your sleep may suffer a lot.

Why the hell didn't she say this before then when she gave her comments for the SMC? And why should Crawley not get more heavily criticized for this on the basis she is doing her best? Vulnerable, sick people, hand over lots of money they don't have on the back of this sort of shoddy research...