Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Lou Corsius, Jun 13, 2018.
@Lou Corsius - good exchange! Prof. Sharpe does not seem to be too sharp (seriously!)
"If you read it, you’ll see he doesn’t actually show that CBT/GET is ineffective. Instead he mostly just criticizes the criteria used to define recovery in the various trials" - (the ironically named) @ cfs_research
What does he say about the fact that PEM is worsened by exercise?
and there's this POV
“This is a classic bad study,” said Ron Davis, director of the Stanford Genome Technology Center and director of the Science Advisory Board of the End ME/CFS Project. He emphasized an additional problem: The study used such a broad definition of the disease that it likely included many patients who didn’t truly have ME/CFS at all.
“The study needs to be retracted,” Davis said. “I would like to use it as a teaching tool, to have medical students read it and ask them, ‘How many things can you find wrong with this study?’”
and this study of the pace study...
Hmmm, Prof. Michael Sharpe suggests that Mr. Corsius would not be so concerned by poor quality research, if the results were the ones desired?
I'm guessing that Prof Sharpe doesn't know how to be wrong, and is a major projection machine... narcissism, much?
It's demonstratively false though, questionable biological research gets regularly criticised here (and the other forum).
it is, as I replyed, an irrelevant question. He was trying to divert our attention from the fact that these studies are severely flawed. All five of them. Anyone can see that.
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.