slysaint
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,125
He should have tried for the Guild of Cobblers.A rumour tells me he applied for the presidency there first, but they wouldn't have him.
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.
He should have tried for the Guild of Cobblers.A rumour tells me he applied for the presidency there first, but they wouldn't have him.
So he can join a load of old cobblers? (For anyone unfamiliar with the slang, a load of cobblers translates to "nonsense".)He should have tried for the Guild of Cobblers.
thats the polite version. The other rhymes with rollocks."nonsense"
I was wondering if the investigators are correct here as I cannot see any issue with their argument or am I missing something?
From the New York Times article: "The investigators had weakened their outcome measures from their trial protocol so much that participants could actually deteriorate on physical function and still qualify as “recovered.” Thirteen percent entered the trial already having met the definition of “recovered” on that measure. The investigators have argued that this didn’t matter since participants also had to meet additional recovery criteria."
As far as I understand trial participants had to have a physical function score of 65 or less to qualify for entry to the trial, and were only considered recovered if they met several criteria simultaneously- fatigue and physical function in the normal range (physical function>or=60), plus rating themselves as much or very much better, plus no longer meeting the Oxford CFS criteria which included having a physical function score of 70 or more, so there was no overlap between entry and recovery criteria for physical function.(although there was an overlap between what was considered physical function in the normal range and what was necessary for trial entry).
Doesn't the RSM have influence over training? I thought that could be what appealed to Wessely. The conferences they put on, and their videos online, are presented as being significant but I've really got no idea if anyone pays any attention to them.
I'd like to be President of the Royal Society of Medicine!
I suspect they might have regarded him as overqualified.He should have tried for the Guild of Cobblers.
I've asked my doctor if he or another doctor from Kaiser Permanente would be willing to sign. He passed.Is any doctor welcome add a signature to Tuller's letter?
As far as I understand trial participants had to have a physical function score of 65 or less to qualify for entry to the trial, and were only considered recovered if they met several criteria simultaneously- fatigue and physical function in the normal range (physical function>or=60), plus rating themselves as much or very much better, plus no longer meeting the Oxford CFS criteria which included having a physical function score of 70 or more, so there was no overlap between entry and recovery criteria for physical function.(although there was an overlap between what was considered physical function in the normal range and what was necessary for trial entry).
I was wondering if the investigators are correct here as I cannot see any issue with their argument or am I missing something?
From the New York Times article: "The investigators had weakened their outcome measures from their trial protocol so much that participants could actually deteriorate on physical function and still qualify as “recovered.” Thirteen percent entered the trial already having met the definition of “recovered” on that measure. The investigators have argued that this didn’t matter since participants also had to meet additional recovery criteria."
As far as I understand trial participants had to have a physical function score of 65 or less to qualify for entry to the trial, and were only considered recovered if they met several criteria simultaneously- fatigue and physical function in the normal range (physical function>or=60), plus rating themselves as much or very much better, plus no longer meeting the Oxford CFS criteria which included having a physical function score of 70 or more, so there was no overlap between entry and recovery criteria for physical function.(although there was an overlap between what was considered physical function in the normal range and what was necessary for trial entry).
It looks very much as if the researchers did not really stop to think what they were doing.
Yup, do we have a *concise* Refutation Of PACE Defences FAQ anywhere? Would help with PR.
I am pretty sure that David Tuller would be happy to add him on.But can my dad sign it? He is a retired UK consultant.
(My italics)The ME/CFS criteria for recovery. The change in the fourth criterion for recovery is the strangest of all, and points to confusion about the qualification for entry. This requirement sounds extremely impressive—the patients no longer have CFS!—but in fact, patients who met the first three criteria may have automatically met this one as well.
In the changes to the protocol in 2013, the authors added a requirement to all the definitions of ME/CFS (Oxford, London ME, and CDC) that patients also had to meet the trial entry requirements for the fatigue and physical function scores. In other words, the 2013 Oxford “case” definition of CFS had three criteria:
meeting the Oxford criteria for CFS AND
having a physical function sore of 65 or lower/worse AND
having a bimodal fatigue score of 6 or more/worse
To meet the fourth 2013 criterion for recovery, one must only fail to meet one of the three conditions above, as one needs to satisfy all three to have CFS by the new definition. In this revised version, one could meet the CFS recovery criterion with an improved fatigue or physical function score alone.
In particular, if someone were to have a bimodal fatigue score of 5 or less on the fatigue scale (where less is better), then regardless of any other assessment, that person would no longer be said to have CFS, irrespective of other symptoms.
I think of it as a bit akin to taking a very poorly car in for much needed repairs. The engine is running incredibly badly with not much power, the brakes are binding and holding the car back all the time; the tyres are ancient and almost flat so they really drag; the clutch is slipping so what little power the engine does develop is not all getting to gearbox anyway.I was wondering if the investigators are correct here as I cannot see any issue with their argument or am I missing something?
From the New York Times article: "The investigators had weakened their outcome measures from their trial protocol so much that participants could actually deteriorate on physical function and still qualify as “recovered.” Thirteen percent entered the trial already having met the definition of “recovered” on that measure. The investigators have argued that this didn’t matter since participants also had to meet additional recovery criteria."
As far as I understand trial participants had to have a physical function score of 65 or less to qualify for entry to the trial, and were only considered recovered if they met several criteria simultaneously- fatigue and physical function in the normal range (physical function>or=60), plus rating themselves as much or very much better, plus no longer meeting the Oxford CFS criteria which included having a physical function score of 70 or more, so there was no overlap between entry and recovery criteria for physical function.(although there was an overlap between what was considered physical function in the normal range and what was necessary for trial entry).