Search results

Press coverage: Daily Star have covered it, but half of the article is about Ricky Gervais... https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/711428/Ricky-Gervais-Fame-ME-joke-MP-Steve-Brine-Apologise

I think it's also going to be shown on BBC Parliament on Monday 25th June, and then it will be on iPlayer: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0b8gxnn

I don't doubt that what they did was statistically significant, but if what they did was incorrect and biased, then it's how that result is interpreted that's important. No amount of reanalysis or fancy statistical adjustment is going to make any meaningful difference to that.

Any legal experts out there? Sharpe keeps harping on about the context of his accusation to Carol Monaghan. But surely, any accusation of an MP's behaviour being "unbecoming" to their position (ie, that she is "unfit" to be an MP) is in itself libellous, whatever the context? I guess it...

More on FIBs...

Bingo!

I have an MSc in Medical Statistics, if that helps. There are worse problems with the PACE trial than their significance testing. The main issue is that the although the result was statistically significant, it wasn't clinically significant. It's not about p values per se - differences in the...

I keep wondering whether "false illness beliefs" started life as one of those derogatory medical acronyms...

It was "chronic fatigue syndrome" in the title because that's Lancet policy. ME was disappeared in the 90s, I presume after Wessely had words with The Lancet over their editorial on the RCP report in 1996. We weren't allowed to use the term "ME" in editorial when I was there, and I suspect...

"Have you read Hansard?"

There's this... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3806067 (from 1987) or this... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3156653 (from 1985) ...but that might explain why they don't like using [associating with] the term "false" anymore.

Oops. Just accused @cfs_research of starting the whole "false illness beliefs" thing. (I've blocked him on Twitter.) Should I unblock him just so he can see that?

The last CBT/CFS study published in The Lancet before PACE was the Prins et al paper (2001). The second author was Bleijenberg. Knoop was probably also suggested too. It doesn't even need to have come from SW. All TL need is to believe that these are the "respected researchers in this field"...

Absolutely not. If he is listed anywhere in the paper, he can't review it.

According to Google, the earliest mention I've found so far of "false illness beliefs" is from November 2003 by a certain David Jameson (ahum!).

"These results contrast with our uncontrolled study reporting substantial benefits of CBT..." They might as well have said, "these results contrast with our highly biased study reporting substantial benefits of CBT."

I'd be interested to know what they said too... @dave30th ?

The Lancet are not learning the lesson about subjective measures in unblinded CBT trials. Just look what they published in Lancet Neurology yesterday... *sigh*