Search results

The most notable part of this is this bias is still common amongst scientists today.

Rewarding 100% attendance means that people come into work/school when they are ill with infectious illnesses, spreading those illnesses to others. Why is this deemed praiseworthy behaviour, when say, antivaxxers are shunned? Both lead to the spread of infectious disease.

I'm sure Wessely is a "very stable genius".

Wildly optimistic, but that's what we've come to expect from Silicon Valley boffins right?

When you are looking at common symptoms, not underlying causes, the heterogeneity does not matter so much. Lots of researchers have wondered about cytokines as a marker for fatigue in healthy people (or athletes), to no avail. I am confident in saying none of the cytokines are markers for any...

Then, as now, we will not "acknowledge good intentions" while these researchers continue to fail to make any attempt to build trust with the patient community.

I spent a lot of time researching this a few years ago and came to the conclusion that none of the cytokines can be biomarkers for fatigue in patients or athletes. The presence (or lack of) and kinetics do not match at all. I also spent some time looking at the various cytokine receptors and...

Henrik Vogt sounds just like the usual "alternative medicine" quacks...

Measuring miRNAs is not the same as measuring SNPs, but I'd also caution that their miRNA research is subject to the same sort of statistical false positive risk.

There is a worldview difference between us and these people. The "illness" is that we're complaining about are considered to be the symptoms themselves (hence the name "CFS"). Whatever the cause of those symptoms is no matter to these people (psychiatrists and their friends) if we stop...

It sounds like classic narcissism to me - it's more about how she feels and the voices of the patient community are unimportant.

Medicine has always been guesswork. It is more science-influenced than it has been in the past, but we are still quite far from comprehensive science-based-medicine. I'd say the ICC and CCC are quite specific "positive" diagnoses, but NICE and Oxford are still quite nonspecific.

I think she is genuine, but she is rather gullible and doesn't make a very good scientist. Science is not about trying to confirm your preexisting beliefs, but that is all she seems to be doing with her poor quality study designs...

I'm sure it'd be ugly...

There isn't a division between psych vs nonpsych. People like Lenny Jason for example are well respected. The problem is a key loss of trust between patients and certain doctors and researchers. The loss of trust is due to decades of unwillingness of those people to listen to patient experience...

:rolleyes:

This is a good point and brings up the idea of legacy of an old man - it is not merely about any breakthroughs by Davis, but about all the people he can encourage to enter into the field, whether on his team or not.

It means they don't have meaningful results yet. It's all hype at this point.

Tails we win, heads you lose. You can't have two opposite hypotheses, you choose the one that makes the most sense. Everything else is HARKing...

Some otherwise courageous people have the blind spot of not being willing to damage the careers of their friends. Ben Goldacre is one of those people. As for the rest, it makes no sense to 'morph' a feasibility study into a 'full' study. The study remains a feasibility study even if it is...