FITNET was the one with a genuinely high rate of self-reported recovery at first, but no difference at LTFU, right? That study generally seemed like a bit of a mess, with lots of the control group having had in person CBT/GET, but there's quite a bit of leeway for making claims about recovery with it before counting as 'fraud' imo.
I'm not sure what the definition of fraud is, but she said several times that 6/10 completely recovered. When you repeat that multiple times everyone that goes out of that room believes that 6/10 of all patients became 100% healthy. She knows that that is not the case. She knows better. She is a f*** researcher. I don't only expect a higher level of precision, I
demand it. It is unheard of to go on like she does. How can anyone take her seriously?
Compare it to what Fluge and Mella reported after their rituximab study. Their results have much better than any CBT/GET trial. They said that this "could work for some" and that rituximab had a significant effect.
In a subgroup of ME/CFS patients, prolonged B-cell depletion with rituximab maintenance infusions was associated with sustained clinical responses.
How can we take ms. Crawley seriously when she doesn't present studies with a degree of precision? It is almost as I don't believe it is true. She is standing up there and saying that 6/10 completely recovered. I don't know what defines a lie in the U.K, but in Norway a lie is a lie when you
knowingly makes an claim that is incorrect.
I would hope that Crawley doesn't actually believe that all patients who were labelled as recovered did actually recover so that their health returned to pre disease functioning. It is time to stand up. Enough of this BS already