Search results

Trouble is they are convinced the problem is with the patient and not themselves, which heavily biases them into believing there is nothing they need to do, and effectively blocks them from seeing there is anything they need to do. From their perspective it is a self-fulfilling, perfect comfort...

"There was no analysis of any outcome data during or after the feasibility phase until the entire trial was completed". Absolutely. And it is carefully worded it seems to me: "There was no analysis". Seems to carefully skirt the high probability that outcome trends would have been unavoidably...

Is that necessarily the case? Are you sure any "stability" does not just mean firmly locked into the trapped unhealthy state? Which would be distinct from the degree of illness when locked into that state. Please note I'm not speaking from a position of deep knowledge or understanding here, but...

Nice :).

Kind'a puts a new slant on "Artificial Intelligence" don' it ;).

Feasible for what? Getting the intended results? As per their "clarification" (aka admission) here for instance, that the trial was indeed not prospectively registered. Clarification of an infringement does not somehow make it acceptable.

I always reckon you have to be a little bit mad to stay sane :)

Agreed. And we must not fall into the trap of taking a negative view of someone simply because they may be well-to-do.

"What we have learnt from the research and our experience is that by embarking on an individualised programme of graded exercise or activity, people can manage symptoms, improve their health and engage in more activities than they were at the start of treatment". It also sounds like this is...

That sleight of word, head messing thing yet again. Mention two different things in the same breath then continue as if they are the same, hoping people don't spot what you've done. Unfortunately it so often works.

Exactly. Who needs science? :rolleyes:. Indeed it's a tacit admission they have none to fall back on.

Surely high quality peer reviewing is integral to high quality research, the two go hand in hand? It's just that it so often seems to dumb down to low quality peer reviewing endorsing low quality research. It's not doing peer reviewing that is the problem, but problems ensuring high quality...

I would guess that for some it is down to good integrity, and others down to communal back scratching.

I usually find the .tw domain works for me, http://sci-hub.tw/.

I'm obviously being a bit dense ... where is the Responses tab?

I don't think there is any doubt about the existence of food intolerances, in that certain people cannot tolerate certain foods, and they are not due to an allergic reaction but something else. Whether the "something else" is understood, definitive or woolly, only time will tell.

I do get the impression there may be a correlation between food intolerances and ME. So many pwME seem to have a variety of food intolerances, including my wife; seems the prevalence could be higher in pwME than the general population? Could certain foods provoke certain bacterial gut leakages...

Very good. Especially ...

Yes, although I would suggest GET has not been proven safe for any ME severity level. There seems to be a lot of anecdotal evidence that those severely affected might not have become severe, if they had avoided GET whilst still mild or moderate.

@Jonathan Edwards, @MEMarge