I have no idea if Dr Shepherd has made the right decision but I was wondering whether he could have accepted the full committee position after requesting from NICE a written position on all other members, their activities and whether they would be made to abstain from votes on GET and CBT?
Lets...
Having made this strategic decision it is imperative that others on the committee must be held to the same "conflicts of interests" voting rights as Dr Shepherd has had to factor into his decision.
I think we can submit our letter to NICE now stating such issues.
We don't even know if the other lay members haven't, "been cured by LP".
There's even nothing to stop them being LP practitioners for example is there? It seems very strange that we don't know who they are as most advocates would be known via the forums and would probably name themselves too...
The argument may be obvious to the chair in theory but that doesn't mean it will prevail. It comes down to one thing, if the BPS crowd have a majority of one on the committee they will ignore the argument.
Transparent to who though?
Will it be transparent to GPs, nurses, hospitals, benefits...
At the same time none of that supports the notion of stress being relevant. If we don't know what the virus is we don't know how long the contagious stage is.
It could be very limited therefore less like to spread to further geographical areas after an outbreak.
In terms of traumatic life...
Didn't Trudie Chalder say during the FOI hearing that they hadn't actually released data to independent groups as they had only released to the Cochrane review team, three of whom were PACE PIs?
Was she referring to the Cochrane review by Larun or something else?
I think that just about says it all. Why haven't we ever done the Cochrane review ourselves as a community?
Larun was obviously put up by the BPS crowd.
First it was a minority of patients, then it was vexatious patients, then it was people with an agenda along with patients, then it was people who hadn't read the papers, then it was a few badly informed people who had no description because admitting they were academics and doctors would have...
I wasn't referring to any bizarre argument etc I was just asking out of interest. I wanted to know what happens in such a case as we are actually in the position where we need NICE to understand nothing is better than something when the something is based on fake evidence.
This seems to be a...
How the hell can they resubmit, assure sound and well considered peer review and make a decision on republication by the end of November. This whole thing just seems bizarre.
From Toveys statement it seems that Larun explicitly expressed that her group would be able to resubmit before the end...
Of course these notions can't be beyond the understanding of the average psychiatrist. They are just inconvenient when you are trying to promote a soundbite using implication to reach an uncritical audience via an uncritical journalist.
If Michael is so convinced of his arguments lets just put...
Have you seen any of them critiquing PACE anywhere and speaking out about how appalling the whole thing is? Its not hard there's a mountain of evidence against it now.
Independent statisticians must be called to testify during the NICE review the review is supposed to be evidence based information not about anecdotal nonsense.
"We do this and we do that in our clinics", is not evidence. The published evidence is what is on trial here and now there are...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.