Search results

Mary Dimmock and Todd Davenport have sent a letter to Cochrane and also wrote one for the ME/CFS community, with a link to the draft protocol. I posted the letters on Facebook but VB is being screwy and I can't sign in at the moment...Hopefully that will be figured out soon...

yes, exactly.

Hey I'm in Australia now--I hadn't realizerd they'd posted that. I'm pretty sure it will be recorded and available, but I'll know more later. Yes, the title sort of makes it sound like one of us is defending pathophsiological approach and the other defending the psychobehavioral approach I hope...

that's good exposure. The Association of Health Care Journalists has lots of members.

Yes, I sent Meredith the PACE trial way back then. We have occasional contact on Facebook.

wow, I went to high school with Meredith but haven't seen her in years. I sent her the PACE trial when I was first working on it to get her input, and she's definitely sympathetic.

this seems like sophistry or just semantics to me. You don't need to use the phrase "We recommend" in a sentence for a positive assessment of an intervention to be considered a recommendation. The review "recommends" exercise therapy in the common-sense meaning of the word, which is...

https://virology.ws/2025/03/03/trial-by-error-australian-survey-seeks-input-for-new-me-cfs-guidelines/

You never know! The local advocates have worked hard to even get to this point and seem to feel the health ministry is serious. I'm sure they'll fight hard for the guidelines to meet the needs--just as those on the NICE committee did. But I also assume there will be GET/CBT die-hards on whatever...

In this case it's an excerpt from a book, so the interview took place a long while ago. It makes sense to me that someone writing a book from O'Sullivan's perspective would seek out Garner as an interviewee. He doesn't need a publicist. If you want to include someone who is saying what he's...

thanks! fixed.

It's very unclear. It's also unclear whether they were initially contacted by the LP instructor or the student. It could be what you suggest. I took it to mean there were 20 LC patients treated by this practitioner, but that could obviously be wrong.

This could be done through a sensitivity analysis that would show the impact of any changes on the results.

I see, just getting back to this. The claim that this is an audit is preposterous. this is also what Crawley did. She exempted almost a dozen studies from ethical review on the grounds that they were service evaluation and not research. Some of them were. Some were clearly not. She interviewed...

this seems to be a presentation for newer findings--the "second audit." The paper seems to be the first audit.

I was just now reading it. And this self-evident contradiction jumped out at me. If they can make generalizations, why are they generalizing that it is "safe and effective" for everyone???

Oh, good for Nina!!

I'm not sure that changing a reference would automatically require new ethical approval. I think it would likely depend on how substantive it is. I haven't looked at the protocol at this point but do we know if/what changes occurred? But yes, if the protocol had a different MCID cited, they...

no, it is not. in my view, any change should be explained.

good catch! you're right, they don't seem to mention the results in this draft of the usual care group, and it's not included in the table. I assume perhaps when the published-published verison comes out, that info will be included. And my phrasing, given that, was inaccurate, so I fixed it...