Search results

Still the most read article in the journal it seems, just ahead of the Wilshire reanalysis of PACE recovery outcomes: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21641846.2016.1160598

That is outrageous.

That's weird. It has been taken off-line. It's been archived here: https://web.archive.org/web/20180423154806/http://www.bath.ac.uk/campaigns/volunteer-for-research-investigating-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/

It's fine for them. It's only if you're an ME patient criticising Chalder's work that every possible opportunity will be taken to try to portray you as stigmatising mental health problems.

Generally, it's not the person whose behaviour is being judged that gets to decide whether they're a part of a scandal or not. It's like Wessely's “OK folks, nothing to see here, move along please.” Who do they think they're fooling?

With good news, like New York State’s Revamped Website, I feel like I can really under-appreciate it until I see it in one of Tuller's blogs.

Tuller looks at some of the annoying and unjustified claims Andrew Lloyd has made about the PACE trial, and those pointing out problems with it. http://www.virology.ws/2018/04/24/trial-by-error-andrew-lloyds-past-endorsement-of-pace/ Warning: probably not ideal reading before bed. It's got me...

Sounds good. Thanks for the link and the summary.

Edward Shorter used to talk about how CFS was again going out of 'fashion' at the end of the 90s, as it became viewed as 'psychological'. Instead, we just ended up with twenty years of patients being stigmatised and mistreated. These Norwegians are twenty years late to a bad idea, but still...

Excellent news. Thanks to all who donated.

I don't know. Maybe they decided that the abstract from 14 years ago didn't meed updating?

Thanks - I almost only use the PACE related pages, so forget that there's more there. I find it really useful as a store of links/sources, eg all of Tuller's blogs being listed thee.

I was just looking through he's recent replies - I think that this was my favourite: I wonder how he decides what to reply to.

Yes, that's the key thing. They're not going to be biased by claims that the therapist makes to the patient, or want to try to impress the researchers with a nice positive response.

re CFS & ME, I thought I'd post this from Swiss Re's write up of White's presentation of the PACE trial's results to them:

I'm sceptical about what this will mean for patients looking to challenge the BMA's approach, but who knows?

The same abstract was used for the 2004 version by a different author: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B0124755704002882 This is the summary of changes they provided: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128012383957374

There are also political and financial matters to consider. Being diagnosed with 'ME' rather than 'CFS' can make it more difficult for insurance companies to avoid pay outs by applying MH exclusions.

It seems to me that no-one really knows, but that if a figure is needed for political reasons guestimating a prevalence rate of around 0.5% seems sensible, and there are studies that could be cited to support it. While there's still so much uncertainty over exactly who should be classed as...

PS: I feel a bit guilty for not doing more to try to follow up on this debate. It seems like a great opportunity to get pressure applied by those outside of the usual corrupt networks. I did get into a potentially promising exchange with my MP, but have then taken ages to send a new response.