New era for ME/CFS research as top cytokine study attracts media headlines
The immune systems of patients who have recently developed ME/CFS look markedly different from those who have been ill for much longer, according to a major new study from Drs. Ian Lipkin and Mady Hornig at Columbia University. This shift in immune function hadn’t been seen before.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Action for M.E. (2003). Membership survey ‘your experiences’ questionnaire

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Dolphin, Sep 24, 2013.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    I thought I would upload this survey. Peter White often quotes this small survey and I think it is useful for people to be familiar with it.

    Here's the main quantitative data on GET from the survey that I recall.

    [​IMG]
     

    Attached Files:

    Simon, Bob, WillowJ and 1 other person like this.
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    Example 1 of Peter White quoting this survey:

    In:



    (other references to harm in paper:



     
    Esther12 likes this.
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    Example #2 of Peter White quoting this survey:

    In



     
    Esther12 likes this.
  4. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    Example #3 of Peter White quoting this survey:

    In:


     
    Esther12 likes this.
  5. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    Example #4 of Peter White quoting this survey:
    (see second paragraph)


     
    Esther12 likes this.
  6. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    Example #5 of Peter White quoting this survey:

    PD White didn't write this extract - this was written by ScotME:
     
  7. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    Example #6 of Peter White quoting this survey:

    In:

     
  8. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    Example #7 of Peter White quoting this survey:




     
  9. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    From Full NICE guidelines - I'm not sure who made this point at the moment:


     
    aimossy likes this.
  10. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,569
    Likes:
    15,316
    South of England
    That's an interesting graph. Where did you get the graph from, Dolphin?
     
  11. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,110
    Likes:
    7,144
    See attachment in top post.
     
    Bob likes this.
  12. Simon

    Simon

    Messages:
    1,695
    Likes:
    5,774
    Monmouth, UK
    1. Astonishing: you can't conclude anything at all from a sample of 42
    2. Comparing negative outcomes vs postivie/neutral, looking at the Behavioural Therapist results - presumably bona fide trained for such interventions - with gym gives a p value of 0.42, where p=0.05 is significant (Fisher's exact test)
    3. In any case, the best results came from using no professional (ranking from worst harm to least: OT = Gym < Physio < Therapist = GP < No Professional)
    4. So not only are the results statistically meaningless, the non-significant results indicate the results are worse with health professionals (Though amazingly the gym approach is bad too).
     
    WillowJ, Valentijn, Dolphin and 4 others like this.
  13. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,569
    Likes:
    15,316
    South of England
    Clearly AfME failed to refer to this graph when they wrote their published GET paper in which they heavily push the theory that any bad experiences in relation to GET are caused by badly trained therapists. Considering this data, I think their published GET paper undermines their members, and does us all a grave disservice. Instead of objectively assessing their own research results, they appear to have deferred to the psych-lobby, yet again. I'm really annoyed about this important omission from their research study. I wish I'd seen this data earlier. I didn't know it existed.

    AfME always seem completely out of their depth in terms of interpreting research, or research proposals. Either that or consciously in collusion.

    As Simon says, we can't tell much from this data, but it could have pointed them towards further research. Instead they've completely ignored it, and have almost concluded the opposite of what the data shows, but without any further evidence.
     
    Valentijn and Dolphin like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page