Snowdrop
Rebel without a biscuit
- Messages
- 2,933
The lecture and notes are what they are, and had the purpose that they had.
I'm sorry but I'm not clear as to what the purpose was. Is anyone else unclear?
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
The lecture and notes are what they are, and had the purpose that they had.
I've been in touch with Brendan on Twitter. He thanked me for the links I sent him and says he is happy to engage with us and is busy today but hopes to join us tomorrow, though I guess that might be delayed by him having to go through the application and approval process to join PR.
I'm sorry but I'm not clear as to what the purpose was. Is anyone else unclear?
This x 1000.Strong demonstrations of directionality, sensitivity and specificity is necessary to build a useful model.
Probably worth explaining a bit of the background here. My work is largely about epistemology in medicine, particularly relating to the ways that clinicians use evidence from randomised trials to guide their practice. I'm currently working on PACE (and have been since I read the first few posts by David Tuller in 2015), largely because this is a case where too much trust has been placed on a poor piece of research, and that trust has been justified (in part) because of the kind of methods used to conduct the trial. That's important for ME care, obviously, but also important for medicine more generally because there are lots of other examples where similar things have happened in other diseases too.
No regrets!I suspect that there must have been times over the last few days when my serendipitous discovery of your lecture notes might have been regretted
Well, I think that's pretty understandable. There's lots not to like about the way that philosophers of science talk about science - which often has very little to do with the way that science is actually practised.You may find a certain antipathy towards philosophy and epistemology in general,
Top-of-the-head, yes to the special issue, but not really to the virology.ws posts etc. I don't really know why that is.I'm curious if the ME/CFS community's efforts regarding PACE are being noticed in UK academia? Do people know about the work by Tuller and others and the JHP special issue?
Mostly because we've been badly burned by it in the past. The arguments used to support an openly psychosomatic or more amicable-sounding "central sensitization" model are almost entirely based in philosophy rather than science. Hence we're up to our gills in philosophizing by a bunch of quacks who studiously ignore biology and patients. And somehow, those philosophizing quacks have ended up in charge of determining how we are treated medically.You may find a certain antipathy towards philosophy and epistemology in general,which I have never quite understood, but you will be in a better position than I to advance their necessity.
Speaking for myself, I regard epistemology as one of the most important issues facing humanity, which needs far more attention and respect.You may find a certain antipathy towards philosophy and epistemology in general,...
Not sure it even rises to that level. Mostly it is now just based on misleading games with words and numbers.The arguments used to support an openly psychosomatic or more amicable-sounding "central sensitization" model are almost entirely based in philosophy rather than science.
Yep. No way I am giving those clowns yet another shot at wrecking what is left of my shabbyMany of us could probably use the support, but can't risk the damage done by a sympathetic psychologist who misleads us for months before betraying our trust.
Speaking for myself, I regard epistemology as one of the most important issues facing humanity, which needs far more attention and respect.
I just think that empirical science is the basic raw material of epistemology. Possible methodologies are defined by nature, not by our internal monologues. All we can do is learn to read nature more clearly and accurately.
Every other approach ultimately ends up in some form of solipsism, far as I can tell.
particularly relating to the ways that clinicians use evidence from randomised trials to guide their practice.
Except when it comes to self-reported outcomes after months of the patients being told they'll be cured if they ignore their symptoms. Then we're suddenly 100% trustworthy again, but only if we say symptoms are diminishedPatients are viewed as unreliable witnesses to their own condition.
Yes, let's not forget the FINE trial. Ta.We now, as a result of the PACE trial data reanalysis, and its sister trial the FINE trial,...