Jeannette Burmeister Profile picture
Jun 12 13 tweets 4 min read Read on X
NIH’s malicious Effort Preference claim is propped up by a misleading manipulation of the EEfRT and a shameless misrepresentation of the EEfRT data. Read all about it in Part 2 of my new series. thoughtsaboutme.com/2024/06/12/the…
One of my through-the-looking-glass findings is that ME patients actually performed better than controls on the EEfRT based on the reported data, completely debunking the Effort Preference claim, but there is so much more than that.
NIH conveniently excluded--w/o explanation or mention in the paper--the control w/ the fewest hard-task choices (HTCs), on par with the ME patient w/ the fewest HTCs whose data weren't excluded. #1
The EEfRT requires, for validity, a very high and similar (btw. groups) trial/task-completion rate. A 67% completion rate for hard trials by the patient group is completely outside the realm of validity, especially compared to the >96% hard-trial completion rate by controls. #2 Image
Five ME patients were physically unable to complete hard tasks at a valid rate or at all. Under the EEfRT, data from participants who are physically unable to complete at least 50% of their trials are to be excluded. NIH's failure to do so renders EEfRT findings invalid. #3 Image
Left: This is how NIH wants you to believe ME patients and controls performed, i.e., more HTC by controls in every trial. That's what the Effort Preference claim is based on.

Right: This is how the groups actually performed: a tiny difference between groups. #4
Image
Image
NIH claims that patients made fewer HTCs "at the start" of the EEfRT. That is false. Pts chose more hard tasks in the first trial. Both groups chose the same number of hard tasks per participant for the first 4 trials. /#5 Image
NIH claims that pts made HTCs at a lower rate than controls "throughout" the EEfRT i.e. on every single trial. That is false:

* 34% of trials: higher HTC rate by pts
* 2% of trials: same HTC rate by both groups
* 14% of trials: practically identical HTC rate by both groups

#6
The reason patients made fewer HTCs is that they followed the EEfRT game instructions to win as much virtual money as possible and made strategic choices by not choosing hard tasks for low-probability trials (probability sensitivity). This debunks the Effort Preference claim. #7 Image
Using a game optimization strategy (every EEfRT trial has a different reward value & probability of winning), patients on average won more virtual rewards than controls based on NIH data. This eviscerates the Effort Preference claim. #8 Image
At least some of the EEfRT data is false. In 79 uncompleted trials (56.03% of all uncompleted trials), participants were given unearned rewards when they shouldn't have based on the EEfRT rules. That means that the entire EEfRT data set is unreliable. #9 Image
This is a very truncated summary of what I have found. Keep in mind that NIH made sweeping, unqualified conclusions about an allegedly altered Effort Preference as a defining feature of ME based on one 15-minute test by ONLY 15 ME patients. #10
There is also an astonishing number of inexplicable, careless mistakes with respect to the EEfRT in the paper, making it very clear how little effort was put into its accuracy. #11

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with Jeannette Burmeister

Jeannette Burmeister Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @JKBurmeister

Mar 12
Thread: We have barely scratched the surface w/ respect to Walitt. The more you look, the more you realize just how deranged he is. This is whom NIH installed to run the intramural ME study and to be primary investigator for ongoing GWI & FM studies. This is not normal. 1/
Take, e.g., this 2013 Walitt opinion paper (links in last tweet, published in Nature Review,) a vile propaganda piece regarding fibromyalgia & myalgic encephalomyelitis: Culture, science and the changing nature of fibromyalgia. 2/
Image
Image
My focus here is mainly on Walitt’s views, but his choices of odious science-free quotes & citations—which include Wessely and Shorter—obviously constitute an endorsement. Conversely, Walitt disses work that “led to the expansion and acceptance of” FM. 3/

Image
Image
Image
Read 14 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Don't want to be a Premium member but still want to support us?

Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal

Or Donate anonymously using crypto!

Ethereum

0xfe58350B80634f60Fa6Dc149a72b4DFbc17D341E copy

Bitcoin

3ATGMxNzCUFzxpMCHL5sWSt4DVtS8UqXpi copy

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us!

:(