Preprint There Is No Established Connection Between Long-COVID and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, 2025, Kouyoumdjian et al

[rvallee]

This title is going to have a big effect when authors of other papers go google searching for anything related to relationships between ME/CFS and LC. It's going to float to the top of those google searches and get taken at face value and plugged into endnote in a heartbeat. It scarcely even matters what the paper will say. Titles do heavy lifting in citation and this is one that's going to really stand out and get used very easily.

Yup, it's very clearly clickbait. Although it does have the bonus of being so comically inept that it could actually backfire, but we can never be sure.

 

[Peter T]

Yup, it's very clearly clickbait. Although it does have the bonus of being so comically inept that it could actually backfire, but we can never be sure.

Inept makes no difference to the psychogenic true believers. I had thought Prof Crawley’s Lightening Process study would be the reductio ad absurdum of the PACE type experimental design, however instead many BPSers resolved the apparent contradictions by becoming Lightening Process defenders too.

 

[bobbler]

This title is going to have a big effect when authors of other papers go google searching for anything related to relationships between ME/CFS and LC. It's going to float to the top of those google searches and get taken at face value and plugged into endnote in a heartbeat. It scarcely even matters what the paper will say. Titles do heavy lifting in citation and this is one that's going to really stand out and get used very easily.

It sort of gives the game away doesn’t it that rather a lot of individuals and areas these days are just ‘filibustering’ the literature and have been for the last few decades by doing such a thing on common search terms - so that the papers that use proper methods, discussion proper issues and indeed flag why bad methods are a problem can’t even see the light of day as they appear on search page 280 after all the dross people like ..we know all the names… can churn out one a month if because they are based on surveys and often retrospective or made up etc.

Sadly that’s one tactic bps obviously used -filibustering- to do over the subject of psychology. Just SEO’d (search engine optimized) papers of propaganda stuffing out the whole literature before it from coming up on searches.

If academia really wants to survive and not be paid stooges , plants and/or writing ‘evidence’ to order roles then they need to get a grip on this issue and people - some subject areas just might need to entirely start again.

Pain management certainly seems another one where the distortion of recent years has gone too far but I don’t know if like other parts of psychology there was a decent literature before that could be rescued if a wag was found to blackmark the weight of filibuster papers off that old stuff so it can see the light of day on searches.

It would be good to keep those filibuster non-genuine beliefs standard papers somewhere not least so that those who chose to involve themselves in writing such stuff have that attached to their history/cv for those looking up their reason for being etc and the old ‘stopping history repeating’ but there does surely need to be and also surely is a very simply from a search engine point of view way of black-marking said papers as ‘part of the pseudo literature’

So eg should someone who was a researcher in propaganda/post truth /others agendas snd tactics want to deliberately be able to search certain literatures with the ‘pseudo literature’ option turned on then they can see these. But the rest of the papers that aren’t pseudo which there will naturally be fewer of because they involve eg blinded controls and take time as they aren’t just opinion pieces or online surveys etc aren’t buried under the weight of the fake stuff and can be found