Search results

The do--ie CODES trial. And the players overlap with the usual suspects.

exactly.

Wow, promoting diagnosis creep right before our eyes!!

This is exactly why I have focused a lot of time recently on trying to smack down some of the bogus claims being made by the FND folks about prevalence, the purported specificity of the "rule-in" signs, etc. They have spent 10 years inflating the prevalence from their key study from Jon Stone...

turns out trying to engage with him was completely pointless.

well, that might have created problems for Lifelines' ZonMW grant, I suppose.

Also, in the full recovery paper, which I've reviewed before, they acknowledge that they used the wrong statistical method to determine the "normal range," just like in PACE. They used the method designed for data that falls into a normal distribution, not data skewed toward the positive end...

Excellent, thank you! I see there's a lot to work with. the challenge with this piece is that they say 80%+ did not have the low activity levels, so in that sense if they are severely fatigued they don't match the baseline low activity pattern that they claim would be needed to show increases in...

Except for Crawley. Odd that she's not signed on.

And if, as the Dutch have informed us, physical activity has nothing to do with fatigue, what is the point of GET in the first place? Why increase physical activity if it is irrelevant to how people feel???

Interesting finds about past statements of the importance of physical activity. Fodder for the next blog post.

Is that the title of Jane Austen's last unpublished novel?

clearly they thought these were not "errors" but "anomalies."

I took the evening off and went to see an excellent production of The Crucible. The arguments supporting witchcraft in Salem, Massachusetts, in 1692 came across as more reasonable than the stupid notions advanced by this crew of sore losers terrified about having lost their long-standing control...

This might already have been responded to--I haven't read the whole thread. They are completely in bed with the PACE team and the rest--the leading FND experts, Jon Stone and Alan Carson, studied under Prof Sharpe in Edinburgh, as I understand it, and are now close colleagues. The FND people...

They make it so easy to ridicule their position, given the preposterous arguments they raise. Physical activity isn't related to fatigue in any way? Really???

Oops! I just corrected my post. I made this error--I thought I copied the number from somewhere, but now I can't find from where. Maybe it was just my own mistake.

They all see their interests threatened by the paradigm shift toward viewing these conditions as biomedical post-viral or post-acute-viral illnesses. this is why I have been spending lots of my time smacking down false claims of prevalence and bogus hyping of so-called "rule-in clinical signs"...

That's weird--I saw a full version of it and now I can't find it. I assumed I accessed it through Berkeley but it seems now to be unavailable online. He really misrepresented the CODES findings by saying, as previously claimed in the article, that other outcomes might be more important than...

Do they really say this? I think they mostly say that people can improve, not that most recover. They seem to temper this because they know many really don't get any better, so they often acknowledge prognosis is iffy or poor.