Search results

I understand your concern, but I’m not sure I want ME/CFS-researchers that takes it personally when they are proven wrong. That’s partially why we’re in this BPS mess in the first place. We need more quality, not more «anyone’s best». Regardless, ME/CFS isn’t intuitive. It doesn’t fit most...

What isn’t understood? ;) Why does ME/CFS exclude LC as a co-morbidity? I’ve always thought of LC and ME/CFS as two partially overlapping circles in a Venn-diagram. This. Excellent idea! Although members only threads are quite public given the size of this field. However, I can’t think of...

The phrase "if you can't explain it simply you don't understand it well enough" comes to mind. I don’t know if that’s the case here, but it could reasonably be interpreted that way. Nobody can expect anyone to understand ME/CFS completely or even partially, but we can expect researchers to...

No, it does not. That’s why I didn’t label is as PEM-safe, and stated that it is used in an effort to reduce the energy cost of any given activity.

Throughout the history of humans, most people have been wrong about most things. And most people don’t understand the almost insurmountable requirements that have to be overcome in order to prove that something is «known» og «true». Even the people that understand, are prone to logical fallacies...

It’s difficult to change your mind without strong incentives (like PEM). And some just want to be of help, so they end up focusing too much on trying to force or create an improvement.

I was not aware of that context, thank you for letting me know. Seems like I jumped to conclusions, although prior work isn’t a guarantee against future mistakes or inaccuracies so we need scrutiny for everyone (which is what you alway do!) Interesting idea! Although my typing speed and...

It’s probably impossible. And that’s a good argument against contacting researchers. If they want to hear from us, they know where to find us.

«We need to use all of the available tools and work together to solve this». Why is this relevant for ME/CFS? Logical fallacy? «We haven’t found anything yet, so we need a different approach.» More like we haven’t had the funding to dig deep enough with large sample sizes.. «Shit in, shit...

I’m new here and I love this place. Why do people hate it and stay away? I might be naive and idealistic, but I (used to) work in a firm with a partner structure - they are essentially a breeding ground for this kind of culture. During my first meeting with the entire local division, I...

Is it fair to say that this is a good rule of thumb?: You can’t force an improvement, you have to wait for it while avoiding deterioration. This goes for any intervention. So far, I’ve yet to see any evidence of anything that can guarantee an improvement for any given patient, including...

I like his theory because it focuses on something they found to be wrong, and then they try to work around it. It might not be what’s wrong with you, but I’ve heard personal anecdotes about significabt improvements from this method. Although I’ve never heard about major improvements for anyone...

This tracks with my understanding of PEM after 3 years of LC and now ME. The rule is simple: don’t cause PEM, wait for a stable improvement (weeks), and use at most half of that improvement.

Some suggestions: ME/CFS Disassembled (MCD) ME/CFS Understood (MCU) ME/CFS Comprehension (MCC) Although «SKEPTICISM implies unwillingness to believe without conclusive evidence». Which is what you do.