Hmm, anything specific, e.g. is something cryptic, or motivation for post? I will clarify if there’s something of particular concerni dont really understand some of your post
I did not get this out of the interview article. My interpretation of successful use of protocol is improvement of quality of life, whether feeling better or reduction of symptoms. I’m not focused on ‘curing my ME/CFS’; arresting its heretofore progression would satisfy, but it’s too early to tell if that is happening (with my current efforts, protocols, et al).There are no instant remissions on D3, nobody is claiming that, only VERY FRESHLY diagnosed MS people usually get better within 3-6 months and feel cured, but those sick for longer (if not only official MS and no symptoms) improve slowly and in years of protocol..
I otherwise agree with your observations but I’m not sure what ‘BEM’ is acronym for, i.e. as ‘gold standard?' If it’s analogous to double blind placebo controlled trials then I really agree with your comments on sample size and observed results... .I do believe observational info about 90% (even coimbra says 95%) because, it is based on CRAZY BIG SAMPLE. I mean 4000+ people, 15+ facebook groups (some have 15,000 members). It is just too big.
There is one research when EBM is not needed, and that's when effect size of "experimental" group is much bigger than of untreated samples (or treated w conventional medicine) and i think Coimbra protocol will qualify for this.
State of current chronic diseases treatment in conventional medicine is horrible and i blame EBM as gold standard. It has so much flaws and if you cant fund study, its worthless in the eyes of medicine. I dont know how so called smartest people in world fall in EBM trap.
Hey, I would eat 'rock soup with pine cones' if I learned X-number of people considerably improved their ME/CFS with it, irrespective of the underlying science