Search results

I would say there's an aversion to claims of psychological causation from observational studies designed to find associations only and to claims of psychological treatment from unblinded trials relying on subjective outcomes. Since there is a constant stream of such studies in high profile...

Thanks. It seems she's never really met an illness she couldn't turn into a psychosomatic condition.

So they included patients with required PEM per CCC (although optional with Fukuda) and then excluded patients with PEM?

I interpret it as meaning, "It's a convincing-sounding idea, but we have no evidence for it."

Come on! It's based on the explanatory power of recent symptom science.

Thanks! And I just posted about it here. What a non-responsive response!! They don't mention the main point--their primary outcome findings were clinically insignificant.

My only concern, in re-reading the passage at the end of my letter, is that I used the word "lapse" twice so close together without realizing it. Bummer! Bad style choice!!! When I read it now, it makes me cringe!!

Another reason why the request that I should submit a rapid review in order to trigger responses--from the authors and from the journal--doesn't wash.

I actually considered it, but I don't want to play that game. If the authors hadn't already rejected the need for a correction, that would be one thing. But at this point, I don't understand the request. It's like they don't even realize that the request for a correction has already been...

https://virology.ws/2025/03/28/trial-by-error-bmjs-strange-response-to-our-letter-of-concern-regarding-living-systematic-review-of-long-covid-interventions/

The fact that they felt forced to update their very recent comment shows, I think, they're scrambling to get out of the hole they've dug for themselves. Presumably that means they're feeling some pressure from the backlash. Otherwise, they'd have left it alone. And yes, I had the same thought...

The UC system is very fucked.

They will shut down whatever they can, just because they can. I doubt they're making much distinction as to whether it's intramural or outside researchers. They seem intent on gutting the NIH.

I haven't heard yet about the other NIH-funded ME/CFS centers, but I assume they'll all be shut down. Of course, the president has particular animus for Columbia because they rejected his offer to sell them property for $400 million back when, according to the NYT. So maybe others are spared so far.

Technically, yes. but it is pointless. these grants are not coming back, period.

devastating and surreal. It feels like the end of the American experiment.

Because they hate all science and Columbia in particular, and every researcher at Columbia is part of the deep state. I wouldn't necessarily look any deeper than that. I doubt there is particular animus against people with ME or anything like that. Why cut it? Because they can.

it is horrifying. Academic departments are just gutted. No idea what will happen.

I was going with the numbers they used in the per-protocol analysis: "140/181 participants were included in the per-protocol analysis, 40/56 (71%) face-to-face, 38/62 (61%) remote, 60/62 (98%) usual care completing 75% of the intervention and the follow-up measures." From this, it would mean...