By David Tuller, DrPH I often find myself responding to crap studies–such as a Norwegian study called “Brief Outpatient Rehabilitation Program for Post–COVID-19 Condition: A Randomized Clinical Trial,” from Nerli et al., published last December by JAMA Network Open. The senior author was Professor Vegard Wyller, the dean of the Norwegian wing of the CBT/GET/Lightning …
By David Tuller, DrPH *This is a crowdfunding month at University of California, Berkeley. If you appreciate my work and would like to make a donation (tax-deductible to US taxpayers) to the university in support of my position, here’s the link: https://crowdfund.berkeley.edu/project/46120 ********** “A small step in New Zealand” Sometimes there is modest good news. In …
By David Tuller, DrPH If the results for a trial’s primary outcome do not meet the threshold for what is considered a “clinically significant” benefit, it goes without saying—or at least it should–that investigators have no legitimate grounds for promoting their intervention as “effective.” This is especially true when the trial in question is unblinded …
By David Tuller, DrPH The administrators of a controversial study of the Lightning Process currently being conducted in Norway have ejected a participant who expressed critical views about the biopsychosocial approach to ME, according to MELivet [MELife], Nina Steinkopf’s invaluable blog. This decision appears to be an acknowledgement that the intervention only works if you …
Trial By Error: Norwegian Lightning Process Trial Ejects Questioning Participant Read More »
By David Tuller, DrPH Last week, I wrote two posts–here and here–about a new Norwegian study in JAMA Network Open that was essentially designed not to find differences in the prevalence of prolonged symptoms in patients with and without coronavirus infection confirmed by PCR. The study reported that almost half of the sample in both …
By David Tuller, DrPH *Two corrections had been made in the text below. The NEM committee has 12 members, not nine, as I originally wrote. And when Dr Flottorp wrote her letter, it was not while the NEM committee was considering the proposed Lightning Process trial, as I originally wrote, but before it had progressed …
