Uncategorized

By David Tuller, DrPH Last month, the journal Occupational Medicine published an innumerate article from Professor Trudie Chalder and several colleagues at King’s College London, called “Chronic fatigue syndrome and occupational status: a retrospective longitudinal study.” Professor Brian Hughes, a psychologist at National University of Ireland, Galway, and I alerted the journal of some disqualifying …

Trial By Error: Awaiting Response on Chalder Paper; Australian GPs Still Promoting GET and Citing PACE Read More »

By David Tuller, DrPH The renowned Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota, has a poor record when it comes to ME/CFS. It has a history of pushing the graded exercise therapy (GET) and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT) approach outlined in the now-discredited PACE trial. These interventions were based on the notion that the symptoms were perpetuated …

Trial By Error: Mayo Clinic Treatment Plan Cites “Deconditioning,” “Perfectionism,” and CBT Read More »

By David Tuller, DrPH Members of the CBT/GET ideological brigades produce a gusher of dreck, and I don’t bother commenting on most of their work. Life’s too short. So it can be easy to lose sight of how flawed and truly awful each individual paper can be. But even among this flood of scientifically deficient …

Trial By Error: A Letter to Occupational Medicine From Brian Hughes & Me About Prof Chalder’s Latest Disaster Read More »

By David Tuller, DrPH A few days ago, I wrote a post about yet another atrocious paper from Professor Trudie Chalder, this one called €œChronic fatigue syndrome and occupational status: a retrospective longitudinal study. Professor Chalder and her colleagues seem constitutionally incapable of writing anything that isn’t marred by massive flaws. In this case, as …

Trial By Error: More on that Disastrous Employment Paper from Professor Chalder and Colleagues Read More »

By David Tuller, DrPH Same-Day Update: In re-reading the new paper, I noticed that the discussion section also features errors involving the percentages. It includes this sentence: “About 9% of individuals who were not working at baseline had returned to work at follow-up.” And this one: “Further, 6% of those working at baseline were no …

Trial By Error: Professor Chalder Messes Up Again in New Paper on CFS and Employment Outcomes Read More »