Search results

Twitter is not exactly the right place for this discussion, but then we haven't been able to chat with Dr Sharpe in any other way so...

By now Sharpe is likely well aware of this thread, just FYI...

This is making the assumption that the underlying demand for funding by high quality proposals/teams is not there. But what concrete evidence do we have that this is true? All research proposals are inherently risky - there is no guarantee there will be a groundbreaking result. Given a lack of...

"I'm going to block you because" I don't want to answer difficult questions and then saying "kind regards". This is passive aggressive to a tee.

There is also patient selection bias - those who are unable to exercise would never have participated in the PACE trial in the first place.

Given the EBV-lymphoma link, could this simply be a long term consequence of prolonged EBV infection, rather than ME or CFS in general?

http://jonathanweisberg.org/post/Reviewer%202/ (includes some analysis/discussion of reviewer order etc...)

"References" sigh. One of the possible boxes of "experience" is severe ME, but how would someone who has had severe ME have the social/professional network to have such references on close hand?

QMUL are not claiming the data is lost, they're claiming a much more sophisticated version of dog-ate-my-data defence. They're claiming that the statisticians have moved on and it is impossible for them to get another statistician to access the data. Yes, really.

The cunning plan involves a sports car.

ME and CFS show up all over the world in similar prevalance, if there are any key environmental factors (besides infections), they seem ubiquitous.

No data yet published, the stated outcome measures are purely subjective questionnaires.

Mean (24 h) physical activity (accelerometry [ENMO])† increased by 6.5%. Not a big improvement, but acceptable for a adjunct therapy.

lambchambers dot co dot uk/who-can-help-you/barristers/richard-colbey

Amitriptyline is a far more potentially harmful drug than many people think - I had POTS when taking it, even at low doses. I am not a fan of this recommendation either.

The shame isn't that they're trying to classify ME as a mental illness to avoid paying out past 24 months, the real shame is that they can get away with discriminating against mental illnesses like this and those who should be calling them out on this, are not doing so.

I don't agree with the idea that because someone is under 18 that their views are somehow worthless. Just saying.

That is true, but it doesn't mean these sorts of studies are worthless. But I agree it would be dangerous to justify experimentation based on studies like this.

Yes, all we can say is the intentions and motivations of patients and activists when criticizing the trial. To @Mike Godwin, I'd like to clarify the two issues, that are often misportrayed: 1. This prominent group of UK psychiatrists who are being criticized, have long been involved in the...

It doesn't add anything new and there are some proofreading issues/errors too, some words have opposite meaning e.g. harmless instead of harmful.