Search results

I have written to him about SMC and this whole mess, although it was before the Reuters situation.

yes I think you are missing things going on behind the scenes. People are reaching out and have been reaching out to Dr Unger for years on these issues. That is continuing. There is a good-cop/bad-cop dynamic in some of this. There is no point in me reaching out to the CDC because I only get...

well, but Reuters did get a quote specifically for the article: The head of the CDC’s chronic viral diseases branch, Elizabeth Unger, told Reuters this was done to remove jargon and medical terms that are not widely understood by the public. “We received feedback that the terms were confusing...

yes, it lists PEM specifically as a characteristic of the fatigue. Then exacerbation after activity is one of the ten symptoms listed, of which at least one must be present. So PEM is required but exacerbation after activity is optional. Very ambiguous and confusing. No one ever seems to have...

Duh! yes, I blogged about it as a stupid study!

Wasn't there just another study using similar or same data from Chalder last month?

The other thing is I never understood why there would be a "boom" if patients have an unrealistic fear of activity. the model presumes they overcome that unrealistic fear every time they do too much and boom. Then they apparently reacquire the fear. It makes no sense.

And not that I have any interest in defending MS, in the context of the specific quote he appeared to be disagreeing with the perspective that patients should be viewed that way. he seemed to be being sympathetic to the plight of patients being viewed that way. I don't like it when people cite...

Kelland referred repeatedly in our exchanges to my "campaign." I told her it wasn't a "campaign" but an investigative journalism and public health project.

well, my mother also donated, and she doesn't have ME!

I haven't listened to it yet. But did he really say this?? That the other scientists are part of the anti-science campaign?

yes. but I wasn't aware of the part about being in one of Peter White's study.

I have always thought this. Plus not disclosing in the papers the fact that 13% met the fraudulent "normal range"/"recovery" thresholds. No one has held them to account for the fact that this was in no way a "normal range" given their population data. It is a seriously overlooked point.

But he's from Oxford.

Overall I agree with this. But partly I recognize that this could also be a US-centric view. Things have changed in the US and now it's key to keep up pressure and make sure the change continues in the right direction and speeds up and keep calling out the CDC and NIH for stupidity or too-slow...

I think you'd probably prefer a one-click button that says "I am deleting your offensive tweet"! :)

I noticed that as well.

well, I guess I said "should" be able to see through it, I didn't say they all would! But the editor in charge of making decisions about wire stories is working on a different level than an editor working with the reporter on a story. It's understandable that one would assume a story was...

I haven't seen the PACE authors use it. Except they read the editorial before publication so they essentially endorsed the language.

I also read it this way.