Search results

But as we know, any association gets interpreted in the direction that favors their hypothesis.

That's interesting.

Thanks for bringing it to my attention! it had been off my radar. I'd assumed they'd been corrected as a matter of course although in the back of my mind I figured I should check at some point. and I really appreciated that letter from the HRA not to my dept head but to the Berkeley...

This of course made me laugh. I guess we'll see what happens next. They did have a turnover after Teresa Allen left. She was the HRA official I was dealing with. I would guess that they assume that recommendations made in such a report would actually get made. It really shouldn't be necessary to...

I've actually heard/seen this routinely in UK press and media, and it always feels sightly off to me. So it's a real thing. I assume grammatically correct that way in UK and the other way in US, but haven't checked. If I were editing, I would "correct" that if it was for a US audience but not a...

But I agree, they SHOULD be interested. The fact that they only really look at "retractions" obviously leaves a big gap in their coverage. I tried to nudge them to cover the 3,000-word "correction" of the Lightning Process study, for example. Of course, that should have been retracted! But it...

Good idea, but they're really interested in retractions, not corrections.

interesting--in American English we use the singular for organizations/agencies/etc, not the plural: "...the HRA has to say about this failure to comply with its report..."

https://www.virology.ws/2022/08/29/trial-by-error-professor-crawley-was-asked-to-correct-ethics-statements-in-11-papers-7-are-still-uncorrected/

I have a post on this, but Virology Blog is down for one of those reasons I don't get. I'll have to wait till Professor Racaniello fixes it or does whatever needs to be done to get it up again.

It's true. I've checked the papers against the recommended corrections, and most of the 11 papers have not been corrected. I don't know if there is a requirement to comply with such recommendations by authors and journals, or if it is advisory or voluntary. The fact is, they are all corrections...

Thanks for checking into this! I've been meaning for a while to check, and haven't gotten around to it. Someone else had also pointed out to me that some were not corrected. I will take a look and alert Bristol and maybe the journals and the HRA. I can't really contact Esther directly at this...

He's retiring? Interesting.

I'm sure it will be a talk just bursting with powerful manly thoughts.

Who are Peter and Susanne la Cour in this debate?

It is truly unbelievable from any objective perspective that this person continues to get research funding and, presumably, still has a decent reputation among her peers. She seems to mangle and distort every data set she touches.

Is this "functional medicine," which is an alternative medicine movement in the US at least that uses "functional" with a different meaning than in the phrase "functional symptom" or "functional neurological disorder"?

i agree with you! it makes no sense. All I was saying was that they always said it was a feasibility study.

to be fair (even) to Trudie Chalder, they did call it a feasibility trial in the protocol. it's true the findings suggest this is a dead end so just because it might be "feasible" to do doesn't mean it makes any sense.

I haven't read the paper, but do they explain why the identified "response shift" doesn't change the apparent effect of the intervention? Why wouldn't a tendency to change how the questionnaire is responded to lead to a change in the final outcomes (not in direction but in size)?