1. The latest crowdfunder to support David Tuller's work has opened. To donate click here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the two part 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 11th October 2021 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Measurements of Recovery and Predictors of Outcome in an Untreated CFS Sample (2019) Thomas et al.

Discussion in 'PsychoSocial ME/CFS Research' started by Esther12, May 16, 2019.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,142
    This post and the following ones have been moved from this thread.

    I was just looking at this new paper from the author:

    Measurements of Recovery and Predictors of Outcome in an Untreated Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Sample

    http://orca-mwe.cf.ac.uk/121864/1/ed8b62_949404b2a6cf4c39a0ee45e7caf270fd.pdf

    It looks like all the analyses are post-hoc:

    These sorts of studies don't really interest me, but it could be presented as challenging findings from earlier weak studies:

    WTF? How on Earth do they think that they have confirmed this?! What embarrassing quackery.

    Why do funds connected to Sainsbury seems to be funding so many crappy CFS researchers?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 16, 2019
  2. obeat

    obeat Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    616
    Perhaps Chris Ponting should apply!
     
    MSEsperanza and Esther12 like this.
  3. Amw66

    Amw66 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,753
    Who are trustees . Interests and network may shed some light.
    They also funded SMILE from memory
     
    MSEsperanza, MEMarge, Barry and 2 others like this.
  4. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,057
    Presumably it is wholly unconnected with any events between 1998 and 2006 when David Sainsbury, as most, but perhaps not all, will know, was Science Minister.
     
    MSEsperanza, Barry and Esther12 like this.
  5. Mithriel

    Mithriel Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,212
    "As the number of patients who completely recover over time was low, recovery was redefined as patients who were ‘recovering with occasional relapses’ and those who had ‘almost completely recovered’."

    Why did they need to redefine recovery? Recovery was low so they could have looked at improvement. Changing language has not place in science.

    "There were no penguins in Glasgow so we redefined sparrows as penguins so we could continue our research" :banghead::banghead::banghead:
     
    Amw66, MSEsperanza, Hutan and 14 others like this.
  6. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    7,478
    Location:
    Canada
    Basically this in a nutshell. Invent an ersatz version of the disease, fake a bunch of subjective research that weakly "measures" that fake definition and declare success despite all evidence showing no objective benefit.

    Phrenology was genuine cutting-edge science compared to this. Complete garbage.
     
  7. MEMarge

    MEMarge Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,269
    Location:
    UK
    So it is a study by 2 psychologists, one of whom is from Bath.

    Would we expect a useful conclusion?
     
  8. Snow Leopard

    Snow Leopard Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    3,202
    Location:
    Australia
    Yep....

    Coincidentally, protocol defined recovery following the PACE trial was about ~5% and independent of group allocation.
     

Share This Page