Minister Donnelly, with respect, this research is not "invaluable". It is not yet peer-reviewed. It is not yet published. It does not seem to be pre-registered. The findings on the face of things do not even demonstrate proof-of-concept
There are many salient methodological shortcomings: (a) non-random selection of participants; (b) unclear diagnosis; (c) small sample; and (e) NO CONTROL GROUP; etc etc.
These pts had 'persistent symptoms' at best, far from the #LongCovid that affects so many
🧵Possible reasons why "There is no evidence that.."
1. Claim untrue 2. Claim true but evidence is misinterpreted 3. Claim true but wrong evidence is examined 4. Claim true but no data are available so we can *say* there is "no evidence"
For 1 to hold, 2-4 need to be ruled out
Some scientists will assert that burden of proof should be on a claimant. Where no "evidence" exists, a claim should be rejected, to avoid an "argument from ignorance".
But this presumes scientific infallibility. The scientist could just be wrong.
Yesterday I (& many others) tweeted about a highly dubious proposal submitted to the Senate of the British Psychological Society, that the Soc support "an information campaign to promote a biopsychosocial approach to #LongCOVID" 1/9
In my view (and that of others) the bid represented yet another brazen professionally territorial attempt to "claim" #LongCOVID as a psychological illness, in defiance of fast-accumulating scientific evidence to the contrary 2/9
What an ill-educated, badly reasoned & frankly dumb comment this is, posted under story by @TimesONeill on new treatment standard for ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis)/CFS (chronic fatigue syndrome).
NICE are de-listing CBT & GET (graded exercise) as #MECFS therapies #pwME
1/16
The author of the comment, MichaelS (who he?), makes many ranty points, touching on a several demeaning anti-disability tropes.
Internet comments that stigmatize disability groups are nothing new, unfortunately. But this comment is special
The "friends-of-friends" network guarantees that influential academic figures can effectively mark their own homework, distorting the scientific record and -- for good measure -- undermining the principle of evidence-based clinical practice
The author of the comment, MichaelS (who he?), makes many ranty points, touching on a several demeaning anti-disability tropes.