Search results

I agree. I see little point in being English and sticking to niceties when people are walking all over the rules. I am in medical research and would once not have used the word lie but times have changed dramatically. People are lying here and maybe more than one lot. They are also doing it...

It's longish story but to simplify. Feasibility studies are part and parcel of all sorts of research, especially when dealing with inanimate matter. But The 'feasibilityfest' we have been seeing in Bristol, and a centre in London that majors in feasibility studies (maybe King's) consists of...

Yes, But she does not seem to be in the middle of the feasibilityfest. I see from Virology blog that David has been through all this with a fine toothed comb. I have not been paying attention. But it's the same old story.

Yes, but the whole concept of 'feasibility trial' is crap (as David would say).

I forget but I rather suspect she is heavily involved in the 'feasibility' bandwagon.

So who was this reviewer suggesting that the study should be viewed as 'feasibility' and what was the motivation? It sounds like someone with an agenda to sell the feasibility concept.

Yes, this is what I was implying! Authors get proofs to read. If they found their study mischaracterised it is up to them to point that out. It is hard to escape the impression that the editor is baking pork pies.

I think it may be more complicated. Let us say that to have significant benefit from herd immunity interns of risk to the vulnerable we need 80% of the population immune. If 30% are already immune we need to immunise another 50% by infecting them. But they need to be within the 70% non-immune...

Something a bit murky going on there. No doubt the sleuths will identify what really went on.

It looks meaningless to me.

Derek Phebe has been responsible for high quality epidemiological work in ME and was involved in the setting up of the UK ME Biobank and EUROMENE (his idea). From my perspective he is the most trustworthy ME researcher in the UK, entirely committed to a biomedical approach. Unfortunately, the...

Why not combine it and scrape the face after gorging on dark chocolate? I always do.

The mistake here is to think that somehow regulatory criteria tell you if evidence is adequate. Regulatory criteria about the evidence required before a new psychological intervention is released for everyday use in practice would, if followed, have beneficial consequences for clinical...

This is an admission of complete failure to understand both the scientific background and the need for an evidence base for treatment. It reads like homeopaths trying to justify keeping there Royal Hospital open in the face of threats of closure. There are no validated treatments and BACME need...

A mask is better at stopping the virus getting in to one particular person who has met virus but that does not mean that a mask is better than a vaccine. It does a different job. In the long run a vaccine is likely to be much better at stopping most people getting infected because masks are not...

It looks to me as if the author has lost it in terms of understanding of what vaccines do. Vaccines have no ability to stop you getting infected. That happens when you breath in or swallow a virus. The point of the vaccine is to stop the virus then producing symptoms and signs - i.e. being ill -...

Think we have seen this before as part of the UCL paediatric service although this may be from the adult service at the Royal Free? The current UCL paediatric ME/CFS page indicates a standard BPS approach with GET and psychology. It also talks of 'pacing yourself better' which is clearly a...

Sorry but history has been rewritten. Thirty years ago a preprint was something you sent people after peer review and acceptance. It was before printing - printing having been guaranteed. It was actually on a piece of paper, usually produced with an ink jet printer or daisy wheel if you were...

But who does it demonstrate that to, other than us? A rhetorical question.

And no, this is not a preprint. A preprint is a peer reviewed paper that is released prior to printing, as a reprint is released after printing.