Search results

[my bold] So science is about ignoring issues that are further discovered to need addressing? "We agreed that no additional issues would be brought into the process" ... are they scientists or babies?

Maybe in his last week in the job he was finally happy to drop a big pile of poo in his office, knowing it would not be him coming in to face it next week.

Bearing in mind it is my wife who has ME. She does suffer constantly from tinnitus in one ear, but not entering into the poll because I think it is inherently biased towards presuming a correlation with ME, with no way of the poll results correcting for that. My wife has had tinnitus from...

One of the things I like about this paper is how the clinics have tacitly admitted, probably without realising it, that they fly in the face of real scientific practice - claiming there is no need to record harms because no harms due to treatment are possible. That alone exposes how amateurish...

I think it would be crucial that existing diagnoses not be blindly accepted, but the researchers apply their own diagnostic assesments.

There is always the risk of harm from any treatment, and to deny it even as a possibility is deeply revealing in itself. If you go for a pre-op assessment, you get given all manner of bumph on the possible harms and their probabilities. Same on pretty much every medicine leaflet you can ever...

Their lack of data gathering shows a presumption that the treatment cannot possibly be harmful, as is evident in the self-reinforcing circular logic. If you refuse to gather evidence of harms, then there will be no evidence of harms.

Perfect illustration of SW's sleight of mind, with his faux self deprecating modesty that so unconsciously sets him on a similar pedestal to someone he wants people to see him as being equally illustrious. Everything he does is so calculating, especially when it appears not to be so.

Did you mean "incapable"?

Er ... yes.

It is so disturbing that crap science, which costs so many real people so much distress, still holds so much sway.

True ONLY if the problem a psychological one in the first place. If they stuck to psychological problems, we'd all be a lot better off. If it can't be fixed by psychological interventions ... then it can't.

Now there's a neat observation.

My wife definitely lacks energy, but no way is she apathetic - far far from it. I think people with clinical depression tend on average to be apathetic, people with ME alone typically not. If they have both then things will be more complex I'm sure. ETA: @adambeyoncelowe got there ahead of me.

[my bold] This really should be the sinking of PACE and all who sail in her.

Also good luck. Hopefully their notion of "in good faith" accepts the fact it was a bit crass providing a second tranche of the same data set that had no means of aligning with the first they had previously made available.

Thoughts @Jonathan Edwards? I know you have commented previously on the possibility that ME might be due to a signalling problem.

But I think you know what I was saying @Wonko :). Here in S4ME I strive to see both sides because it is important for context and objectivity. There are some problems that are due to distorted perceptions, and can be fixed by perception / behaviour-modifying treatments. Indeed I think it...

YES! I think this is because psychiatry lives in a world where where they typically deal with behavioural problems that are due to faulty perceptions in the first place. If I refused to ever go out of the house in rural England because I was convinced I would get mauled by lions tracking me...

Like one of the authors of the 2011 PACE paper you mean ... Oh, that would be GM then :rolleyes:.