Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Cheshire, Oct 29, 2015.
So Suzanne O'Sullivan (who has ignored all ME bioresearch for decades, and wrote a book on imaginary illnessses which included ME) is now the 'go to' medic for ME reporting in the Guardian????? ..... FFS.
Rotten PACE trial apologist piece. What is the Guardian playing at??
One can comment, and I daresay one will.
Mention the petition, guys!
This is false. There was no statistically significant difference between the four treatments at 2.5-year follow-up.
Yes, how ironical!
And the Telegraph journalist is so convenient a scapegoat...
It's always nice when your heroes show up to defend you.
And even more ironical that she posts on the day the NIH in the US tasks the National Institute of Neurological and Stroke Disorders (NINDS) to oversee ME/CFS.
I posted a couple of comments over the course of the day, the woman is beyond the pale:
Do use the like button at the top right of the good comments.
Others see it as an illness related to psychological factors or false illness beliefs. Each of these theories has its proponents, and sufferers often feel pulled between different groups.
...Sufferers have no illusion about what group they fall in
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.