Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Andy, Aug 7, 2019.
Open access at https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/1367493519864747
I just did a quick search for 'lightning' to see if they chose to ignore the problems with SMILE. They did:
They're using it as evidence of "the positive benefits of a cognitive-behavioral approach":
Wonder why this charity would be funding work that promoted junk-science?
seems to rely on Gordon Lubitz 2009 'promising outcomes of an adolescent Chronic fatigue syndrome inpatient program', Journal of Paediatrics and child health
Are they adopting Crawleys Chronic disabling fatigue i wonder
Another pile of junk. I looked up the lead author. All her previous publications were about exercise treatments for epilepsy.
They have completely uncritically jumbled together a pile of articles found in a literature search. I doubt the authors have any idea what CFS is - it's just words to them. Might as well be analysing breakfast cereals on the basis of what's written on the packets.
Literature searches are all very well for beginner research students to get a feel for what's out there, but unless they are prepared to dig into things like diagnostic criteria, problems with questionnaire based studies, sample sizes, lack of replication, p-hacking, cherry picking etc, the outcome is junk.
From Financial Year ending 2017 (the last details available).
Charity Commission details on them, https://beta.charitycommission.gov.uk/charity-details/?regid=1089728&subid=0
From the limited information available the trust seems to be a vehicle for one persons philanthropy, so it's probably more a matter of personal connections.
will this never end?
@dave30th this is another one quoting/promoting the LP study uncritically.
I was reading about the OMF funded collaborative centre at Harvard, and yet more abnormalities the OMF team have found in their severe study, and thought next time I see a GET/CBT study I will mention these new findings. Such as a notably missing good gut bacteria, and more discussion of a genetic abnormality. HR has this article on its site. Can't put link up right now.
Wilfull blindness on the part of BPS colleagues. They really do ignore a large body of evidence. Evidence which continues to increase.
Nope. Useless criteria make for useless results. Garbage.
Separate names with a comma.