Search results

It actually implies that at least 0.24% does, and since most cases are rejected, it is likely several times that. This is known. Ignoring this is intentional. Most of the data on this are not recorded on purpose. That purpose is very clear: deny, reject and cover up. And despite all of this...

Which is an argument for the recognition of temporary sick leave, not the termination of any form of assistance. If someone is ill for a while and recovers, no longer needs assistance, then that assistance can end as they return to work, a clear win for everyone. We are such a weird species.

"What do you call this?" "The Aristocrats" "Evidence-based medicine"

Personally, I put more blame on the people who pretend that the obvious fraud is not fraudulent than on those making a fraudulent case for something that obviously doesn't work. They know what they signed up for. These people are smart enough to see through truncated axes and a series of failed...

Haven't seen any other information, might be on xitter or facebook? No hits for a Jura health clinic on the forum. https://www.drclairetaylor.com/

Surprising to who? Dr Magoo? A deaf and blind head in a jar? No, really, are they actually pretending not to know that this has been controversial for decades? That no study has actually produced reliable evidence of this? This is either feigned surprise or they truly operate entirely within...

But did they try wearing a clown hat? Maybe a red one? Or a blue? Oh, I know! A polka dot hat! Surely that's the magical bean. Hadn't noticed this comic before, but damn does it perfectly describe biopsychosocial pseudoresearch: (Direct link: https://xkcd.com/882/)

Wow, that sure is an impressive level of expertise. Almost every other sentence in the abstract contradicts that. And most of the text. Because? Ah, imagination. That's some impressive biasebo. OK they do note that it's because some guidelines suggest it based on bad trials that show some...

After a rough overview, this isn't all bad, but all of this was well-known by the time Covid came along, and none of that advice was actually followed. There is no reflection on the fact that all of this went completely wrong as a matter of choice, all made especially worse by focusing on UK...

Uh, well now I wonder how people with ME/CFS would rate on wakefulness. Probably not good, something on par with severe sleep deprivation.

So it's influenced by a lot of unrelated things, all of which can be independently assessed better by other means. So it adds no meaningful information. It's odd that they didn't look at infections, which WHOOP does record, and for me had the biggest swings. It's weird as they do note that...

About the level of quality I would have expected out of a study of health records involving Ben Goldacre and the, checks notes, "OpenSAFELY Collaborative", really? It's absurd how there has been absolutely zero increase in quality after 6 years. Some people have noticed, but the sad truth is...

Occurrence and persistence of symptoms, diagnoses and prescriptions after community-diagnosed COVID-19: a matched cohort study using the OpenSAFELY platform https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41887765/ Background: We aimed to explore the occurrence and persistence of symptoms...

Which actually tracks with most research converging on medium intensity exercise providing the best benefits, and low-intensity being good enough anyway, with the best return on investment. High-intensity quickly starts causing problems that cancel out many of the benefits of simple activity...

On that, I have worn a device 24/7 for a while and it mostly compares to what Visible gave me. It's not perfect but the differences are roughly the same, basically similar data in a shifting base. It's probably still better to have it during sleep, but it only adds little accuracy overall.

I don't know how well most people follow the instructions, but it's supposed to be first thing in the morning, after waking up, while still in bed, to avoid some of that exertion. But that can't be verified, so the data are only marginally better than what a questionnaire allows. I don't...

It's especially annoying that the data on this have thoroughly debunked the deconditioning model, and it makes no difference. Here we are talking about variations over days, minor fluctuations that are more likely to be consequence than cause. But the entire basis of pinning everything on...

There is no evidence of such 'strategies' improving this kind of problem, so this is obviously not a rational conclusion. This is pure magical thinking at this point, and it started as magical thinking so it's not going to get any better.

Welcome @nanay, I hope we will have a productive discussion out of this. We are not a typical patient forum, not all us on here are patients to begin, and we are most of all a forum dedicated to the science of ME/CFS, with a much higher level of rigor. As some have mentioned, there are many...

Well there is no competent support and we're 6 years into this so is it a question of defining long-term in terms of decades instead of years? Because to me it sure seems like 6 years is more than long-term enough to end the state of paralysis that has deprived everyone suffering from this of...