Search results

I am unclear how this fits in to the critique. I agree that illness and disability are typically assessed using subjective measures but that misses the point. The point is that fitness is NOT a measure of those so objective evidence of fitness does not indicate an improvement in the illness.

They do not need to be on the committee at all. They should be asked to submit evidence but professionals in other medical fields should be perfectly able to decide what is valid evidence. This is how a court of law works, and it tends to work very well (in Europe) in my experience.

If I remember correctly CIC attended the RT by Zoom. I am not in a position to repeat anything specific but she was involved in a discussion in which there was strong agreement with emphasis from the committee officers that patients' concerns about safety should be taken seriously. There was...

All we have really heard from any of these people is: 'My patch needs to be bigger - and don't you dare step on it'. Rehab, psych, LP, GP, ...

Just to remind ourselves how dumb some seem to be: So, children, why do we blind trials? Because the outcomes might be biased by subjectivity, Sir. Well done children. So which trials specifically need blinding. Trials with subjective outcomes, Sir. Very good! Shall we just go over that...

if the person never considers or discusses increasing the activities they undertake, then the person can never get better. This is very revealing. It assumes that getting better is mediated by doing more - exactly the false premise I put in my testimony. Why shouldn't someone get better while...

From Dr Kevin Lee I’ve never seen statements from doctors colleges so unsympathetic, lack of recognition of patient advocacy groups, paying so little respect to evidence based findings from non-doctor stakeholders. Actually the evidence-based findings came from the NICE staff (not stakeholders)...

I suspect because stepping down in advance of agreement would have called for some sort of valid explanation, as would refusing to agree. Stepping down afterwards could be done without that. From what I have heard the chair and vice-chair were at great pains to listen to all members and respond...

As indicated on some other thread, I have, at least for the moment, been imbued by the (biological) motivation to write my book again. It will of course have a chapter on the NICE guidelines. It will also have a chapter including the ongoing inability of researchers and clinicians to understand...

Malcolm McLeod is another person to think of. He has waded in for SMC in the past. There is a nice irony that his inaugural professorial lecture was on how not to do bad science.

Well said, Asad.

There is a rehab physician organisation, which I think L T-S is head of. We had people from BACME and CSP and OT so it wasn't just Royal Colleges. The annoying thing is that rehab got brought in by RCP despite rehab being pretty irrelevant to ME - just wanting a bit more business. But if the RT...

I guess I am the only regular member here to have been at the round table. My memory is that all present were asked if they approved of publication of the guideline and there was no dissent. This suggests that at least four people have a complete contempt for NICE's process.

Maybe you get crisper chips that way?

We had a few comments about how nobody does GET like that any more. But someone from the NICE side made the point you made. Which was met with silence.

No, @dave30th, you're not confused;). You have been in this business too long for that. You got it in one.

Some of them are ladies though.

So four of the RC signatories were at round table and did not make a squeak about knowing the treatments worked and whatever. I should think that some people associated with NICE will be pretty fed up with this. Maybe next time they won't bother with a pause, just get on with it.

So that is Dr Peter Barry - destructive individual Baroness Ilora Finlay - destructive individual Adam Lowe - destructive individual Jonathan Edwards - destructive individual and so on? This seems a bit like libel, but I had better keep quiet about that.

Prof Edwards states that “unblinded trials with subjective outcomes are specifically considered unreliable.” If NICE as an organisation were to generalise this opinion across all guidelines for example those for back pain, osteoarthritis and multiple sclerosis, what would the impact of this...