#wyller — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #wyller, aggregated by home.social.
-
By David Tuller, DrPH
Earlier this month, I wrote a post about a new study asserting that “exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness.” As I explained, the research, led by experts from the University of Wisconsin and published by the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, made no sense. Although it purported to investigate whether an exercise challenge caused Gulf War Illness (GWI) patients to experience post-exertional malaise (PEM), 85% of the trial participants had already reported that PEM was not a factor for them.
In other words, the study was essentially designed to produce self-evident results. Of course GWI patients without PEM did not experience PEM when put through an exercise challenge. I mean, really, University of Wisconsin? Put simply, this piece of research does not pass the smell test.
Along with the paper, the journal published a laughable comment from Professor Vegard Wyller, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Oslo and a dedicated member of the Norwegian arm of the GET/CBT ideological brigades. In his comment, Professor Wyller somehow tried to spin the study’s non-findings into evidence for his misguided theories.
Now an article in the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet has focused on this study and promoted its bogus claims. And just like the journal, Dagbladet offered Professor Wyller an opportunity to opine about the study’s purported significance. (Sissel Sunde has written about the Dagbladet article in her blog Life with ME.)
I’ve had my own run-around with Dagbladet. Four years ago, the news outlet ran an article about the Lightning Process for ME/CFS that referred to my work while failing to mention my academic credentials. I wrote a letter of protest. In response, Dagbladet published my letter as an opinion piece. (I was told that, under Norwegian press law, I had a right-of-response after having been misidentified.)
My impression is that Dagbladet is generally on the wrong side of these issues. So…the new article on the GWI study is illustrated with a photo of an attractive young woman on an exercise bike, with the following caption: “People who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome can also tolerate exercise, a new study shows.” Of course, the study was about GWI, not chronic fatigue syndrome. That didn’t stop the investigators—and Professor Wyller—from extrapolating the findings to patients with other conditions characterized by fatigue.
Here are some of what Professor Wyller had to say in Dagbladet:
“Wyller says that a feeling of pain and exhaustion is perceived as a signal that something is wrong, but according to the professor it is entirely possible to feel pain without there being anything wrong with the body.
“He emphasizes that the experience of pain and other symptoms is completely real.
“- This suggests that the symptoms occur in the brain, rather than in the body. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real feelings, but that the symptom has another explanation – it might be the brain playing a little trick on you…I think we should do more research on the brain to find an explanation for these diseases, rather than trying to find a physiological explanation, says Wyller.”
To its credit, Dagbladet sought out someone to counter Professor Wyller’s non-evidence-based views: Karl Johan Tronstad, a professor in the biomedicine department at the University of Bergen, who is investigating ME as a disease involving auto-immune aspects. Professor Tronstad noted, as I had in my critique, that few of the GWI patients in the study actually experienced PEM as part of their illness presentation. He suggested, therefore, that it was “dangerous to generalize the findings to other patient groups.”
Professor Tronstad also told Dagbladet: “- What this study actually shows is that PEM occurs to a relatively small extent in their study group of 40 patients…Most patients who have PEM will most likely decline to participate. They know that they will not be able to complete the hard test programme, or that it would cause them to deteriorate significantly over a long period of time, he says.”
**********
I decided to submit a formal letter to Brain, Behavior, and Immunity about this core issue with the study. Here is what I wrote:
Dear Editor—
A recent study–“Exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness: A randomized, controlled, dose–response, crossover study,” Boruch et al–reported that exercise at different levels of intensity did not cause post-exertional malaise (PEM) in patients with Gulf War Illness (GWI). Even though some participants reported symptom exacerbation, those changes were washed out in the group averages.
According to the investigators, their findings support the argument that “the benefits of exercise outweigh the risks.” However, Table 3 indicates that only 15% of the study sample—6 out of 40 participants–experienced PEM as part of their GWI presentation. Although the paper noted that PEM is “prevalent” in GWI, it is not a required criterion for a diagnosis. Whatever PEM’s overall prevalence among GWI patients, it was apparently not a factor for 85% of participants in the study sample.
It is hard to understand the point of investigating whether exercise causes PEM in GWI patients who have already indicated that they do not experience PEM. Ultimately, this study tells us nothing about the potentially harmful impact of exercise on a cohort of GWI patients who actually suffer from PEM.
David Tuller, DrPH
Senior Fellow in Public Health and Journalism
Center for Global Public Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley[1] Boruch A et al. Exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness: A randomized, controlled, dose–response, crossover study. 2024. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 120, 221-230.
-
By David Tuller, DrPH
Earlier this month, I wrote a post about a new study asserting that “exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness.” As I explained, the research, led by experts from the University of Wisconsin and published by the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, made no sense. Although it purported to investigate whether an exercise challenge caused Gulf War Illness (GWI) patients to experience post-exertional malaise (PEM), 85% of the trial participants had already reported that PEM was not a factor for them.
In other words, the study was essentially designed to produce self-evident results. Of course GWI patients without PEM did not experience PEM when put through an exercise challenge. I mean, really, University of Wisconsin? Put simply, this piece of research does not pass the smell test.
Along with the paper, the journal published a laughable comment from Professor Vegard Wyller, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Oslo and a dedicated member of the Norwegian arm of the GET/CBT ideological brigades. In his comment, Professor Wyller somehow tried to spin the study’s non-findings into evidence for his misguided theories.
Now an article in the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet has focused on this study and promoted its bogus claims. And just like the journal, Dagbladet offered Professor Wyller an opportunity to opine about the study’s purported significance. (Sissel Sunde has written about the Dagbladet article in her blog Life with ME.)
I’ve had my own run-around with Dagbladet. Four years ago, the news outlet ran an article about the Lightning Process for ME/CFS that referred to my work while failing to mention my academic credentials. I wrote a letter of protest. In response, Dagbladet published my letter as an opinion piece. (I was told that, under Norwegian press law, I had a right-of-response after having been misidentified.)
My impression is that Dagbladet is generally on the wrong side of these issues. So…the new article on the GWI study is illustrated with a photo of an attractive young woman on an exercise bike, with the following caption: “People who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome can also tolerate exercise, a new study shows.” Of course, the study was about GWI, not chronic fatigue syndrome. That didn’t stop the investigators—and Professor Wyller—from extrapolating the findings to patients with other conditions characterized by fatigue.
Here are some of what Professor Wyller had to say in Dagbladet:
“Wyller says that a feeling of pain and exhaustion is perceived as a signal that something is wrong, but according to the professor it is entirely possible to feel pain without there being anything wrong with the body.
“He emphasizes that the experience of pain and other symptoms is completely real.
“- This suggests that the symptoms occur in the brain, rather than in the body. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real feelings, but that the symptom has another explanation – it might be the brain playing a little trick on you…I think we should do more research on the brain to find an explanation for these diseases, rather than trying to find a physiological explanation, says Wyller.”
To its credit, Dagbladet sought out someone to counter Professor Wyller’s non-evidence-based views: Karl Johan Tronstad, a professor in the biomedicine department at the University of Bergen, who is investigating ME as a disease involving auto-immune aspects. Professor Tronstad noted, as I had in my critique, that few of the GWI patients in the study actually experienced PEM as part of their illness presentation. He suggested, therefore, that it was “dangerous to generalize the findings to other patient groups.”
Professor Tronstad also told Dagbladet: “- What this study actually shows is that PEM occurs to a relatively small extent in their study group of 40 patients…Most patients who have PEM will most likely decline to participate. They know that they will not be able to complete the hard test programme, or that it would cause them to deteriorate significantly over a long period of time, he says.”
**********
I decided to submit a formal letter to Brain, Behavior, and Immunity about this core issue with the study. Here is what I wrote:
Dear Editor—
A recent study–“Exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness: A randomized, controlled, dose–response, crossover study,” Boruch et al–reported that exercise at different levels of intensity did not cause post-exertional malaise (PEM) in patients with Gulf War Illness (GWI). Even though some participants reported symptom exacerbation, those changes were washed out in the group averages.
According to the investigators, their findings support the argument that “the benefits of exercise outweigh the risks.” However, Table 3 indicates that only 15% of the study sample—6 out of 40 participants–experienced PEM as part of their GWI presentation. Although the paper noted that PEM is “prevalent” in GWI, it is not a required criterion for a diagnosis. Whatever PEM’s overall prevalence among GWI patients, it was apparently not a factor for 85% of participants in the study sample.
It is hard to understand the point of investigating whether exercise causes PEM in GWI patients who have already indicated that they do not experience PEM. Ultimately, this study tells us nothing about the potentially harmful impact of exercise on a cohort of GWI patients who actually suffer from PEM.
David Tuller, DrPH
Senior Fellow in Public Health and Journalism
Center for Global Public Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley[1] Boruch A et al. Exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness: A randomized, controlled, dose–response, crossover study. 2024. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 120, 221-230.
-
By David Tuller, DrPH
Earlier this month, I wrote a post about a new study asserting that “exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness.” As I explained, the research, led by experts from the University of Wisconsin and published by the journal Brain, Behavior, and Immunity, made no sense. Although it purported to investigate whether an exercise challenge caused Gulf War Illness (GWI) patients to experience post-exertional malaise (PEM), 85% of the trial participants had already reported that PEM was not a factor for them.
In other words, the study was essentially designed to produce self-evident results. Of course GWI patients without PEM did not experience PEM when put through an exercise challenge. I mean, really, University of Wisconsin? Put simply, this piece of research does not pass the smell test.
Along with the paper, the journal published a laughable comment from Professor Vegard Wyller, a professor of pediatrics at the University of Oslo and a dedicated member of the Norwegian arm of the GET/CBT ideological brigades. In his comment, Professor Wyller somehow tried to spin the study’s non-findings into evidence for his misguided theories.
Now an article in the Norwegian tabloid Dagbladet has focused on this study and promoted its bogus claims. And just like the journal, Dagbladet offered Professor Wyller an opportunity to opine about the study’s purported significance. (Sissel Sunde has written about the Dagbladet article in her blog Life with ME.)
I’ve had my own run-around with Dagbladet. Four years ago, the news outlet ran an article about the Lightning Process for ME/CFS that referred to my work while failing to mention my academic credentials. I wrote a letter of protest. In response, Dagbladet published my letter as an opinion piece. (I was told that, under Norwegian press law, I had a right-of-response after having been misidentified.)
My impression is that Dagbladet is generally on the wrong side of these issues. So…the new article on the GWI study is illustrated with a photo of an attractive young woman on an exercise bike, with the following caption: “People who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome can also tolerate exercise, a new study shows.” Of course, the study was about GWI, not chronic fatigue syndrome. That didn’t stop the investigators—and Professor Wyller—from extrapolating the findings to patients with other conditions characterized by fatigue.
Here are some of what Professor Wyller had to say in Dagbladet:
“Wyller says that a feeling of pain and exhaustion is perceived as a signal that something is wrong, but according to the professor it is entirely possible to feel pain without there being anything wrong with the body.
“He emphasizes that the experience of pain and other symptoms is completely real.
“- This suggests that the symptoms occur in the brain, rather than in the body. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t real feelings, but that the symptom has another explanation – it might be the brain playing a little trick on you…I think we should do more research on the brain to find an explanation for these diseases, rather than trying to find a physiological explanation, says Wyller.”
To its credit, Dagbladet sought out someone to counter Professor Wyller’s non-evidence-based views: Karl Johan Tronstad, a professor in the biomedicine department at the University of Bergen, who is investigating ME as a disease involving auto-immune aspects. Professor Tronstad noted, as I had in my critique, that few of the GWI patients in the study actually experienced PEM as part of their illness presentation. He suggested, therefore, that it was “dangerous to generalize the findings to other patient groups.”
Professor Tronstad also told Dagbladet: “- What this study actually shows is that PEM occurs to a relatively small extent in their study group of 40 patients…Most patients who have PEM will most likely decline to participate. They know that they will not be able to complete the hard test programme, or that it would cause them to deteriorate significantly over a long period of time, he says.”
**********
I decided to submit a formal letter to Brain, Behavior, and Immunity about this core issue with the study. Here is what I wrote:
Dear Editor—
A recent study–“Exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness: A randomized, controlled, dose–response, crossover study,” Boruch et al–reported that exercise at different levels of intensity did not cause post-exertional malaise (PEM) in patients with Gulf War Illness (GWI). Even though some participants reported symptom exacerbation, those changes were washed out in the group averages.
According to the investigators, their findings support the argument that “the benefits of exercise outweigh the risks.” However, Table 3 indicates that only 15% of the study sample—6 out of 40 participants–experienced PEM as part of their GWI presentation. Although the paper noted that PEM is “prevalent” in GWI, it is not a required criterion for a diagnosis. Whatever PEM’s overall prevalence among GWI patients, it was apparently not a factor for 85% of participants in the study sample.
It is hard to understand the point of investigating whether exercise causes PEM in GWI patients who have already indicated that they do not experience PEM. Ultimately, this study tells us nothing about the potentially harmful impact of exercise on a cohort of GWI patients who actually suffer from PEM.
David Tuller, DrPH
Senior Fellow in Public Health and Journalism
Center for Global Public Health
School of Public Health
University of California, Berkeley[1] Boruch A et al. Exercise does not cause post-exertional malaise in Veterans with Gulf War Illness: A randomized, controlled, dose–response, crossover study. 2024. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 120, 221-230.
-
By David Tuller, DrPH
*April is crowdfunding month at UC Berkeley. If you like my work, consider making a tax-deductible donation to Berkeley’s School of Public Health to support the Trial By Error project: https://crowdfund.berkeley.edu/project/37217As I wrote earlier this week, a new study of adolescents and young adults from Norway, published by JAMA Network Open, purports to show that “persistent symptoms in this age group are related to factors other than SARS-CoV-2 infection.” It didn’t actually show that, of course. What it showed is that if you use an expansive case definition that identifies everyone with any single unexplained symptom as having what the World Health Organization has called post-Covid-19 condition (PCC), you will come up with pretty useless data—that is, if you want to understand anything about patients reporting actual disabling conditions.
I also pointed out something that seemed odd to me. As a current template for what they call post-infective fatigue syndrome, the authors were trying to resuscitate a zombie case definition for chronic fatigue syndrome—the abandoned 1994 Fukuda criteria. Since Fukuda has largely been dropped for research and clinical care and has been superseded by other criteria, the attempt to promote it without mentioning its acknowledged drawbacks and lack of present relevance is perplexing.
Not surprisingly, the study drew online criticism as soon as it was published. Beyond the fact that you could drive a tractor-trailer through the porous WHO criteria for PCC, it was noted that adolescents and young adults are less impacted overall from coronavirus infection and that extrapolating the findings to older populations would be unwarranted—even if the study were robust and well-designed, which it isn’t.
But it was also touted by some of those you’d expect to tout it. In his newsletter, Vinay Prasad, a hematologist-oncologist at the University of California, San Francisco, who has invoked the Third Reich in relation to US pandemic-related policies, called the findings a “bombshell” and “a damning revelation.” The study, he wrote, “takes a sledgehammer to the media narrative of the condition.” He added: “The reason people inaccurately covered long COVID is that they needed to have it— they needed it to be scary— to justify continued restrictions in young populations.” Prasad’s post is an amazingly wrong-headed interpretation of the findings.
Undisclosed in the paper was that it was developed in partnership with a group called Recovery Norway, which identifies its members as “people who have experienced recovery from ME/CFS or similar illnesses.” (I learned about this connection on twitter; here’s a particularly blunt riposte to Prasad’s assertions.) Recovery Norway has been closely associated with the Lightning Process—a three-day “mind-body” program founded by Phil Parker, a British osteopath and spiritual teacher who once boasted of how he could “step into other people’s bodies…to assist them in their healing with amazing results.”
Norway’s most prominent Lightning Process practitioner was one of the co-founders of Recovery Norway. Of the 126 individual testimonials of recovery presented on the site, 75 involve the Lightning Process. Overall, 93 of the narratives involve ME/CFS and eight involve “post-covid syndrome.”
The JAMA Network Open paper indicates that the research was funded by the Dam Foundation in Norway, which supports health research in Norway. The page for the project on the Dam Foundation’s site identifies Recovery Norway as the “user organization” for the project. An accompanying Q-and-A with Professor Vergard Wyller of the University of Oslo, the study’s senior author, included further information. According to Professor Wyller:
“The project has been developed in collaboration with Recovery Norway, which organizes people who have experience of long-term symptoms after infections, including both kissing disease [glandular fever or mononucleosis] and COVID-19. Recovery Norway is also an applicant organization for Dam.”
Professor Wyller also said this: “In addition, we regularly receive input from an international user group linked to the COFFI consortium.”
As I have previously written, members of COFFI [Collaborative on Fatigue Following Infection] last year published a “research agenda for long Covid.” Like the JAMA Network Open paper, this article also sought to revive a zombie case definition for CFS—the 1991 Oxford criteria, which required only fatigue for a diagnosis. Like the 1994 definition, this 1991 version has been discredited—except among the likes of the COFFI crowd, apparently.
Here’s another interesting statement from Professor Wyller: “We want to find out whether SARS-CoV-2 differs from other infectious diseases when it comes to late effects after infection in young people.” If this was in fact a question of interest, why did they enroll as controls people who seemed to be suffering from viral infections just because they tested negative for coronavirus? Including such controls would obviously limit the possibility of determining whether the long-term effects of SARS-CoV-2 differed from the long-term impacts of other infectious diseases. The study is not designed to answer Professor Wyller’s question.
In any event, given Recovery Norway’s role in the study, the failure to mention the organization’s involvement, even in the paper’s acknowledgements, is surprising—especially since the information is highlighted on Dam’s site. What’s up with that?
(Originally posted on Virology Blog.)