Levi
Senior Member
- Messages
- 188
............
XMRV is mentioned on the main page. I hope everyone reads the talk page and article before we get any knee-jerk reactions. I've been following both (article and talk page) for quite some time and I can tell you that a number of the contributing editors are ME/CFS patients themselves.What is wrong with the Wiki editorsThis is not the first time they refuse to consider that CFS has biomarkers.
Science isn't a good enough source for them?![]()
Also, I'd like to caution people thinking about editing the page - please don't attempt to unless you know what you are doing. Wikipedia, believe it or not, adheres to strict editorial guidelines. If you have any concerns you might wish to express, please use the talk page.
Articles must be written from a neutral point of view, representing all significant views fairly, proportionately, and without bias.
Looks fine to me, too.
ETA Are there really peer reviewed and published studies supporting efficacy of GET or CBT or is that opinion?
If it's opinion it should be removed for the very reasons given to withhold XMRV.
Are there actual studies supporting this codswallop?
Conclusion: In contrast with the conventional wisdom, the placebo response in CFS is low. Psychological-psychiatric interventions were shown to have a lower placebo response, perhaps linked to patient expectations.
The second article actually made me laugh out loud.
To quote just a little more of what you quoted:
"In contrast with the initial hypothesis, the pooled placebo response was substantially lower than the usually reported one third response in other medical conditions. Among the potential sources of heterogeneity we investigated, only the intervention type had a statistically significant contribution to the heterogeneity of placebo response across the trials (p = .03). The second hypothesis was confirmed. Psychological-psychiatric interventions were shown to have a low placebo response, whereas neutral interventions had a medium placebo response. Finally, infectious-immunological and alternative-complementary interventions were shown to have a high placebo response."
And, instead of concluding that we respond better to infectious/immunological and other interventions becuse they are actually addressing the problem, perhaps even illustrating that there is one, they conclude that our response is a "high placebo response."
Sometimes I forget the lunatics are running the asylum.
Thanks for the reminder.
Koan
Koan,
If I'm understanding correctly, subjects were given placebos that were supposed to represent different sorts of interventions, such as a fake anti-viral, antibiotic, depression pill. The placebo effect was lowest for the fake psychological meds and higher for the other ones.
Don't quote me on this, my brain's fudge tonight.
Blamange Brain here.
Well what you say both makes sense and doesn't. If you give a placebo and say it's a placebo you do kinda ruin the effect.
I will have to read it again.
![]()
What is wrong with the Wiki editorsThis is not the first time they refuse to consider that CFS has biomarkers.
Science isn't a good enough source for them?![]()
I started a Wiki personal subpage on XAND, and have invited feedback. I know zip about creating a Wiki article, and don't write well. Anybody here is welcome to help me shape it up. When we have full-out proof, the polished article can then be moved over to full Wikipedia.