Search results

‘When you don’t account for all of the bias, some of the studies had a low risk of bias.’ How did this get published?! ———— Risk of bias The study risk of bias is presented in table 2. Briefly, when excluding consideration of participant blinding, four studies had a low overall risk of...

Thank you for explaining, that makes sense to me!

So in blunt terms, the cells are murdered rather than committing suicide?

In this specific case it would be because it has caused a tremendous amount of harm, not just because it isn’t successful. Edit: but it’s an interesting question!

Paul wrote about his experience for the British Medical Journal (BMJ). His last blog describing his recovery was met with many critical comments - saying his views were anecdotal, ‘pseudoscience’ not backed by scientific evidence, dangerous, irresponsible and ‘inexcusably unprofessional’. Others...

I’ve seen many BPS proponents that argue that There are no changes on a cellular or systemic level If there are changes, they are continuously maintained by the CNS, i.e. downstream effects of unhelpful beliefs, a stuck stress response, a mismatch between perceived capabilities and actual...

And look at their data availability! The current article is accompanied by the relevant raw data generated during and/or analysed during the study, including files detailing the analyses and either the complete database or other relevant raw data. These files are available in the Figshare...

I don’t have the capacity to dig into the results, but I want to highlight the substantial communication with patients that the researches did as a part of running this study:

Most research is quite disjointed and some just work on their pet theories regardless of the merit of the theories. And most of academia is completely broken, it’s all about citations, publications, grants, power and status. I have no way of knowing if this is a part of that or not.

Try to gaslight them and see how much you can get away with.

@EndME good points. I kind of jumped to a conclusion because brainfog is very common post-covid.

I wouldn’t be surprised if there two events are related.

GPs that have been taught gaslighting indicate that they are better at gaslighting.

This is still interesting, as it seems like the combo of ME/CFS + LC gives more cognitive symptoms.

So slightly higher antibody levels for X might not indicate an infection with X or reactivation of X, but an infection with Y?

Oh, I don’t have a need to explain everything. I already know how to do that!

Could you give an example of what that would look like for a patient? I’m not sure I understand you properly.

The same group has published this paper as well: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34751672/

From the nurse study: Data from table 4 for Model E2: For Model E2 that accounts for PTSD, all CIs go below 1.00, and the p-value is non-significant. They write this about PTSD in the discussion: I have no idea what the HR for Model E2 means for the results, but it caught my attention when...

Does that mean that you would have had lupus according to their inclusion criteria? If so, so of them might in theory have had ME/CFS instead?