Search results

In other news… NIH Record Keeping Scandal Emboldens GOP Attacks - The Hill https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/4697516-nih-record-scandal-gop-attacks-fauci/ The NIH is the top biomedical research grant agency in the world and has historically enjoyed bipartisan support from Congress. But the...

I found that post to be quite dismissive and problematic. I’d recommend others to read this which points out the other side of the story: https://thesicktimes.org/2024/03/19/errors-omissions-potential-bias-why-some-me-experts-are-calling-for-a-retraction-of-the-nih-intramural-study/

I would be very happy to have health insurance reimbursed Gazpacho prescriptions. :)

is there a word for “woke” but with ME/CFS woke meaning being aware of things the mainstream aren’t because MEGPT is doing great love it @forestglip !

Maybe you could add “make sure to display scepticism of attempts to dismiss the biological nature of ME/CFS, and to specify that claims that aren’t supported by multiple high-quality studies are not necessarily agreed upon.”

Yes, the fact they are planning a follow up on PEM I am thankful for.

A quote from Cort, edited my post

From the article: This is the second time that Nath has alluded to the demoralizing effect that attacks can have on researchers. (The first had to do with efforts to remove Brian Walitt, even though Walitt was administering the study – not doing the research.) … Certainly Nath has earned our...

Health Rising (Cort Johnson) just released a piece on the study and it’s findings. While I think parts of it were well written, I was quite taken aback as I almost felt it was a “telling off” for being critical of Nath and Wallitt...

the idea is since me-pedia has lots of outdated pages, and the only stats we could find was of all time most viewed, to see most viewed in recent timeframes (like past month) to see which pages should be prioritised for updating and improving

Yeah me-pedia has some somewhat dodgy stuff about treatments, hypotheses, and possible (unproven) comomorbidities that is stated much more matter of factly than the literature points to, but apart from that it’s a really good resource, with the caveat of being outdated.

Yeah it’s gotten pretty bad, except for notjusttired (and the occasional edit by you, me, and JamieS) there is absolutely no activity for months if you look at recent contributions tab.

I seem to remember you have an Me related website too? maybe? so whatever is easier, but github pages is free which is nice.

I have a github pages site with an okay me/cfs related url I could host on, not exactly sure how, but the script could possibly be automated using github actions

@forestglip I think we could technically brute force the problem. I created a custom url that shows a list of every single me-pedia page including the views: https://me-pedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:PopularPages&limit=5000&offset=0 (takes a while to load since its got thousands of lines)...

See the threads on the Cochrance Exercise Review… I wonder how we could give the chatmodel some much needed scepticism.

I’m wondering if you could either add this document for the chatgpt model: https://www.s4me.info/threads/the-name-question.332/ and/or ask it in instructions to prioritise the naming ME/CFS (or ME)

@forestglip this is so cool! I gave your model a badly written article about ME, the kind you often see on health websites, and asked it to make bullet points detailing errors, it was pretty well done, to the point that with some fine tuning and proofreading it would be emailable to article...

Hopefully you get a reply. A lot of me-pedia is outdated, and there are very few people helping to improve it, so that data is crucial to set priorities on what to improve.

Non-paywalled link: https://archive.md/sPY0u Not sure how I feel about ME/CFS being here given the focus on psychiatric disease, but I rather enjoyed the ending: Some wonder whether these conditions are the tip of a much larger iceberg. The prize in finding out more will be better patient...