Search results

Im not buying that either, you are just one of those former HIV campaigners. Shame on you.

"Why do the Guardian do this why do the Guardian do that, why dont they get it, bla bla bla....." I'm sorry but if its not obvious by now that you can buy your own articles written by yourself in national newspapers and the national media I dont know what to say. Its a revolving door of shared...

That article is chilling. Do you have evidence that she has worked with him and in what capacity.

Ye you took them through a car crash too!!

Judging by the BMJ response they would correct a given paper down so much that it read as the full McDonalds menu and they would still publish it. Amazing what you could come up with with an infinitive amount of monkeys and an infinite amount of typewriters.

Ah there's a simple way out of that one. Those people die early and have cause of death put down to stroke or heart failure etc which can effectively be claimed to be lifestyle illnesses.

Thanks. I am assuming PLOS one is a private organisation, which operates under certain policy based "promises," and the REC is a government organisation so what power do they have over PLOS one or anyone who publishes there?

I am not sure what Buzzfeed is but if its not a video of her speaking directly or her own social media content controlled by her then quotes cant be taken at face value.

You mean the "data" that claims kids said they were good school attenders when self reporting?

Can someone do a quick summary of exactly what has been released to JohnTheJack and by whom. I am confused as to how PLOS One has been told to release data if they are a private organisation. I am assuming this wasnt a FOI? Who has been forced to release data and by which governing body?

If they used the excuse that subjective school attendance reporting was sufficient instead of school records and then went on to claim some students transferred to a less demanding attendance regime halfway through, so they changed the primary outcomes measure, why couldn't they have used...

One of the reasons being the changed protocol decided not to use the objective school records as a measure of attendance and just asked the kids if they had attended or not and never matched the two.

Well this is the thing, at what point does a government body decide to consider whether private publications like the BMJ and the Lancet need to be adjudicated over for their own bias? Or do they go on forever and a day just ignoring that private publications can get things appallingly wrong...

How exactly have the BMJ issued a correction in this case? Which protocol now appears as the original one on the paper and how is history revision permitted in such circumstances? If they have outlined the correction to show the original protocol doesn't that change the "positive results" when...

In that case they cant be trusted with an ME review can they? Or did they only lose their way the day and minute they said something she didn't agree with whilst being unable to justify her own argument in support of Larun anyway?

Does anyone have the actual figures for both handy?

What if you wanted to make nail sized holes in your oven, then what?

Esther Crawley wasn't embarrassed to do the LP study, but then that had extra dimensions to it. It was carried out on children potentially without the correct informed consent and the participants are sworn to secrecy regarding the nature of the "treatments". Maybe that is the key. Perhaps if...

There may be some kind of logic in that. However if the authors cannot agree what they think they are claiming it should never have been published in the first place claiming the treatments proved evidence of being moderately effective etc. Either Cochrane adjudicate over things they accept to...

I'm still trying to work out if Tovey has withdrawn or retracted testicles in this case.