Search results

Yeah, I want to know this too. I find it difficult to believe none of them had serious concerns about it.

Either those who appointed him to the job did not know what they were getting into with him. Or they did know, and chose him anyway.

Context matters. Who knew?

They do have a track record of just making shit up. How many BPS papers have not found anything, yet they still recommend some kind of psycho-behavioural rehab treatment?

@Jonathan Edwards Do you get the sense that journos are starting to wise up to the real story of ME, and maybe finding a little more of that scepticism of authority they are supposed to be famed for? This.

Thank you, @Simon M. :thumbsup:

Self-regulation theory is a valuable foundation for self-management, which aims to equip patients with the tools they need to effectively cope with an ongoing condition or the aftermath of a healthcare event (Taylor et al., 2014). We therefore sought to provide a ‘scaffold’ for people with...

and may contribute to a cycle of exercise intolerance, avoidance and deconditioning If it doesn't work the first 1473 times, try it again. Just have to believe enough that it will work. Faith-based zombie science, par excellence.

Consequently, rehabilitation programs directed at enhancing fine motor skills could be of interest to these patient groups, *sigh*

Which is more than little ironic, given that is what we are accused of.

This is the kind of study there needs to be a lot more of. Basic motor functions, including gait, balance, coordination, etc. Properly controlled for PEM, of course.

Peer review is clearly seriously broken in more than a handful of areas of science, and no more so than in psychosomatics, which has clearly gone rogue on methodology. The situation is completely unacceptable. Something has to change. Lot to be said for at least trying pre-print reviewing.

I agree. I meant for sustained comfort on the face, as the headbands pull the masks onto the face more strongly (hence gives a better seal) than the ear loops. Also, partly due to design differences and partly to individual variation in face shape, some masks are more comfortable than others...

I walk significantly faster now than before I got sick. Best I can tell it is because I had to instinctively recalibrate the optimal relationship between factors like energy reserve and expenditure, haemodynamics, balance and coordination, and momentum. With momentum being the main compensating...

Ideally you would want enough patients to split them into two groups, those who did a single CPET, and those who did the 2 test version. Finding any differences, or lack of them, could have been useful. Most likely the main difference, if any, would have just been one of degree, with the 2 test...

The more results I see across the board, the more I am convinced that all we know so far (to the extent we know anything for sure about ME) are just downstream secondary consequences of the patients biology and psychology trying to deal with the (opaque) primary underlying problem. Not clear to...

Any definition that does not include a delayed component, to differentiate between various post-activity responses (PEM, DOMS, etc), will fail. Worth noting here that basal metabolism is around 75-80% of all energy expenditure, and given the diagnosis of ME requires a large drop in activity...

No argument there.

Mine are P2, which is the Australian equivalent of N95. Don't agree that they are single use only. It depends on how you manage them between uses. I have several in service at a time and make sure they get at least 24 hours of drying and airing out before being used again. IIRC, the P2...

I was initially unhappy about them only using a single CPET measure, not the 2-day test-retest version, and thought it a serious lost opportunity and weakness. But now I am inclined to accept their reasons for doing so, including the burden on patients.