Anonymous
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Search
Editing
List of news articles on ME and CFS
(section)
From MEpedia, a crowd-sourced encyclopedia of ME and CFS science and history
Namespaces
Page
Discussion
More
More
Page actions
Read
Edit
Edit source
History
Warning:
You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you
log in
or
create an account
, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
Anti-spam check. Do
not
fill this in!
=== PACE trial === '''Reporter Excoriates Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study: I Stopped at 14,000 Words-Enough Was Enough'''<ref>{{citation |last = Tuller | first = David | date = Nov 18, 2015 | title = Reporter Excoriates Chronic Fatigue Syndrome Study: I Stopped at 14,000 Words-Enough Was Enough|url= http://alumni.berkeley.edu/california-magazine/just-in/2015-11-20/reporter-excoriates-chronic-fatigue-syndrome-study-i-stopped|newspaper= California Magazine|location= |access-date= }}</ref> ''California Magazine:'' By: [[David Tuller]]. (18 Nov 2015) "Years ago, I never thought to myself, ‘Hey, I’ve gotta be the guy who writes about chronic fatigue syndrome.’ I mean, why would I? It just sort of happened. When research suggested in 2010 that the illness might be linked to a mouse retrovirus, I wrote a piece about it for The New York Times. After that I wrote another story, and then more stories, and then a few more—probably a dozen or so in all. But within a couple of years the mouse retrovirus hypothesis fell apart. And media interest in the illness vanished." '''“No scientific ground to stand on”'''<ref>{{citation |last = Tuller | first = David | date = 27 March 2017 | title = “No scientific ground to stand on”|url= http://www.observantonline.nl/Home/Artikelen/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/12119/No-scientific-ground-to-stand-on#.WNmmu4HtYxY.twitter|newspaper= The Observant|location= The Netherlands|access-date= }}</ref> ''Observant'' By: David Tuller. (27 Mar 2017) "The PACE investigators continue in their refusal to actually address the key concerns raised about their study. First, they continue to refer to this as a "secondary" paper. While it is true that the PACE authors for reasons only they know designated "recovery" as a secondary outcome in the PACE protocol, "recovery" is surely not of secondary importance to patients, so dismissing the paper's significance in this way is unwarranted."
Summary:
Please make sure your edits are consistent with
MEpedia's guidelines
.
By saving changes, you agree to the
Terms of use
, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the
CC BY-SA 3.0 License
and the
GFDL
. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license.
Cancel
Editing help
(opens in new window)
Navigation
Navigation
Skip to content
Main page
Browse
Become an editor
Random page
Popular pages
Abbreviations
Glossary
About MEpedia
Links for editors
Contents
Guidelines
Recent changes
Pages in need
Search
Help
Wiki tools
Wiki tools
Special pages
Page tools
Page tools
User page tools
More
What links here
Related changes
Page information
Page logs