Patients with severe ME/CFS need hope and expert multidisciplinary care, 2025, Miller et al

Nina Steinkopf has pointed out a blatant lie in her recent blog post about this opinion piece:

They write:
A literature review by the Norwegian Institute of Public Health found no evidence that shielding patients from sensory stimuli benefited those with severe fatigue.14
Click to expand...
14 is this:
Brurberg KG. Severe fatigue conditions and sensory deprivation—literature search. Folkehelseinstituttet (Norwegian Institute of Public Health). 2022.
https://www.fhi.no/publ/2022/alvorlige-utmattelsestilstander-og-sensorisk-deprivasjon/

As pointed out by Nina, this literature review did not find any articles that met the inclusion criteria. Therefore, they have not assessed any evidence. It is therefore dishonest to say that they did not find any evidence in favour of shielding, because by the same logic they also did not find that not shielding is safe.

An honest interpretation would be to say that a literature review did not find any articles about shielding that met the inclusion criteria.

It should also be noted that the NIPH has a history of using too strict or outright illogical inclusions criteria for their literature reviews, notably when they in early 2022 or late 2021 concluded that there were no studies on LC up until that point that could tell you something about the risk of sequelae caused by covid, so they treated it like it didn’t exist when they recommended that the lockdown should be stopped.
 
Yann04 said:
This would be a good place to quote that Swiss study by Rea Tschopp which found that being told your illness was psychosomatic was the main reason behind suicidal thoughs in pwME.

Ironically I think Garner, Miller et al actually cited that study in the original opinion piece (for different reasons obviously).
Click to expand...


Looking further. The Swiss study that found suicidality in pwME to be mostly caused by psychosomatic interpretations of the illness. Is quite seriously cited by Miller et al to support this sentence
These disabilities, and the patients’ belief that they won’t recover, can harm their mental wellbeing.2
Click to expand...
Urgh the audacity.
And clearly they must have seen the suicidality part since it’s in the abstract…
 
Yann04 said:
Looking further. The Swiss study that found suicidality in pwME to be mostly caused by psychosomatic interpretations of the illness. Is quite seriously cited by Miller et al to support this sentence

Urgh the audacity.
And clearly they must have seen the suicidality part since it’s in the abstract…
Click to expand...

I would be breaking the site rules if I said how this makes me feel.

Instead I'll just invite us all to imagine the state of Miller's reputation in a few years time if the science comes together as predicted...
 
V.R.T. said:
The chilling thing is that statistically, in terms of the numbers of people with ASPD (sociopathy/psychopathy) in high flying fields, there may well be a proportion of these researchers who know they are causing harm and do not give a toss.
Click to expand...
I don’t doubt that some do, but I don’t think it’s most of them. And I have no idea if it’s any of the ME/CFS ones.
 
Binkie4 said:
Has anyone else been contacted by Linked In. Mr B has just received the following which is gathering support. Why would Paul Garner be on linked in stating these views?



View attachment 26240
Click to expand...
It’s barely getting any attention there, so I wouldn’t bother about it.

PG recently talked about how his way of dealing with «activists» is to continue talking. Apparently, he intends to do that through any available channel.
 
Utsikt said:
It’s barely getting any attention there, so I wouldn’t bother about it.

PG recently talked about how his way of dealing with «activists» is to continue talking. Apparently, he intends to do that through any available channel.
Click to expand...
I never though I’d have a list with 10+ names in my head of researchers I wish every day would retire and spend more time with their grandchildren. (I know some of them are technically retired but I mean stop publishing things and speaking at every conference retire…)

But here we are.
 
We now have the concept of 'multidisciplinary people' as if these were some sort of 'magic people', as opposed to 'muggles', with wands. What on earth does Garner think he is taking about. He seems to be auditioning for a part in Woody Allen's much underrated film 'Zelig'.

Would a combination of a plumber, an astronaut and a historian of Persian literature count as 'multidisciplinary'. Presumably a competent academic physician and a specialist nurse would not.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
We now have the concept of 'multidisciplinary people' as if these were some sort of 'magic people', as opposed to 'muggles', with wands. What on earth does Garner think he is taking about. He seems to be auditioning for a part in Woody Allen's much underrated film 'Zelig'.

Would a combination of a plumber, an astronaut and a historian of Persian literature count as 'multidisciplinary'. Presumably a competent academic physician and a specialist nurse would not.
Click to expand...
I think the combination of gaslighter and babbler would count!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom