Search results

Blinding might be difficult, I mean it is obvious when you've been randomised to the crap carrot cake group. Blasphemy!

I think the cake went over my head on this one.

The forgot to mention the bit where you have to believe in pseudoscientific nonsense.

It's notable that the discussion about Jason Lindsley is well, somewhat different to what was presented in the article.. https://lancasteronline.com/news/local/battling-a-baffling-illness-jason-lindsley-finds-focus-calm-on/article_92334e98-a6e7-11e6-aaf5-c3f4a7a463d1.html

The "Time to achieve required numbers of cases" in longitudinal population based cohorts is interesting (Figure 3). The consequence that it takes decades, given an initial sample size of 500,000 to accumulate enough cases for common diseases.

Are you saying the cake is a lie!?!

What kind of cake? I need some evidence-based cake!!!!!

Exactly...

Here is Lloyd 1988 talking about how much better the name "CFS" is than "ME". https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(88)92107-1/fulltext

"Excellent" must be a relative term, because 66% is still not terribly good.

She said that via email to David Tuller? Here is what she said on the SMC site: Calling it psuedoscience and having concern it is just publicity for a commercial company...

What about our own backyard? There are candidate gene association studies in ME or CFS that are likely spurious, but that doesn't stop many people from believing the findings.

There were researchers publishing things on ME from Australia in the 80s. Unfortunately, Australians tend to follow the lead of the rest of the world and this is no exception. Australians were following the lead of the CDC (1988 Holmes) and UK psychiatrists (Oxford 1991) to separate ME from CFS...

Those are good points, I have one suggestion, but it could be a little controversial: They could imagine themselves having the illness. I mean there was a big swing in the perception of HIV once the general public started realising it could happen to them too.

Yes! "mild" should be banished to oblivion.

Still looks like more haystack than needles...

I'm sure most journalists reporting on this article will conveniently forget this bit.

This group has been fishing in this data for positive correlations quite some time, publishing many manuscripts each on one particular finding. As far as I know, their set of hypotheses were not pre-published and if they were, most of these associations would be published in a single manuscript...

The lesson is those delivering the assessments need to be independent from those delivering the services. Redefining "recovery" or whatever post-hoc and then claiming you met the pre-defined target is fraud.

Most replies to most questions received by politicians are standard responses curated by their staff.