Search results

In an entertaining but completely unrelated example of this, The New York Times wrote a few years ago that the first sentence of the racist bilge, Gone wth the Wind, was "Scarlett O'Hara was not beautiful." I wrote to the Times requesting a correction, since the first sentence is actually...

This is absurd. The study doesn't show anything since there is no comparison group. People tend to get better over time. No way to tell from this whether the supplement had anything to do with it.

This is certainly true. I was trying to interpret it in the way they might be viewing it.

Keeping a diary definitely impacts behavior. this is well-known in studies of diet, when people keep a food diary for 3 days or a week. No one wants to write down chocolate bars and donuts and supersize glasses of Coke. So they tend to forget to write them down, or simply avoid those foods...

That would seem to be the implication, but couldn't they also say they're doing it to retrain body parts rather than because of deconditioning? They seem to hinge their interpretation on the "fixed" incremental aspect, so if it's incremental but not "fixed" they can assume they can get away with...

of course they could always discount those results afterwards as not objective after all because of economic changes. but still best to not include them at all.

Thanks. someone sent me a transcript I think from youtube (I didn't even know how to upload from zoom to youtube and put it on Virology Blog, so now I do). Hopefully in the next day or two I can edit it to correct weirdnesses (I recently read a transcript about an interview on neurotransmitters...

They always engaged in double-talk. In the studies, they were more reserved in calling it a "modest" or "moderate" effect. In press conference, Trudie Chalder falsely stated that twice as many in the intervention groups got "back to normal." They hyped the word "recovery." But when criticized...

Thanks for flagging these. seems like good material for a post...

Right, but of course this didn't work in the case of the Health Research Authority report on the PACE trial because their purview appears to be limited. They couldn't fault PACE because they decided all the T's were crossed and i's dotted as per the standard process (even though this wasn't...

Oh right--I forgot about the musical. Never saw it. The movie is one of weirdest, greatest movies ever.

I'm not sure this ancient movie reference means anything to anyone except aging gay men like me!

yes, I've checked in with Brian about writing a letter. it does seem warranted to respond. I'm trying to write a blog to amplify the points made in my previous blog about the abstract. So many more stupid points. And as has been suggested by @Esther12, @snowleopard and others, they raise...

I forgot that just last month I wrote a blog post about the abstract, which King's College London posted on its site. The article has introduced even more ridiculousness: https://www.virology.ws/2021/10/23/trial-by-error-the-pace-authors-now-blame-misunderstandings-for-get-cbt-criticisms/

Yes, especially if it was peer-reviewed by Professor Sir Simon Wessely and Professor Rona Moss-Morris!

well, ethics boards and trial oversight committees are theoretically supposed to be providing some oversight. but as we know, these processes can be easily subverted.

This page is still up, actually.

that page is gone. did anyone archive it?

Well, if they really had all the power, NICE would have caved to their demands. Perhaps they over-estimated how much power they have.

Did they state that GET was not a good name and that the clinical services actually don't do GET? Did they provide any evidence that their whatever pace-based rehab approach works beyond that they've seen it in clinical practice? I mean, how are they claiming their interventions are...