Search results

Weren't they following up an earlier result that looked like it might have been something? Sounds sensible to me. What research do you think they're ignoring?

I just read the first one, and there were some good and interesting bits in there, but I thought there were also some counter-productive sections. I think it's probably a bad idea to bring up Kelland's other reporting unless you've really had time to go through, check the evidence, and find...

I find these 'the way that science works is...' arguments interesting. Who gets to decide how 'science' works? Is anyone allowed to suggest the maybe 'science' would be improved if errors in papers were corrected? Or if researchers were expected to engage in reasoned debate about the merits of...

Originally: "Tuller has also posted a 15,000 word review of it via the website of a Berkeley colleague." At the current Reuters link: "Tuller has also posted a 15,000 word review of it via a website hosted by a Columbia University professor." On archive (even after the new update at a...

Chalder uses the same slide (missing the twelve month data) in this 2016 talk [slide 14]: https://web.archive.org/web/20151231223030/http://www.oslo-universitetssykehus.no/SiteCollectionDocuments/Om%20oss/Avdelinger/Kvinne-%20og%20barneklinikken/Chalder-Cognitive-behavioral-therapy-for-CFS.pdf...

A series of articles?! There seems to be so much stuff to read today.

Thanks to @Sly Saint for that transcript. I've got some notes, but they are very far from comprehensive. Hmmm.... That's Isaac Marks, the aversion therapy researcher: http://gaynewsarchive.org/tag/isaac-marks/ Okay, well if she still speaks of him like that then that makes a bit more sense...

It's certainly no well organised campaign, but you only need a few people to be stupid on twitter and you can get a story at the top of Daily Mail online... as we just saw this week with Quasar.

This is a repost of something I wrote about 8 years ago, but that post appears to have been damaged, images lost, etc, so I've attempted to rebuild it as Chalder has just cited this study misleadingly in her lecture on her 30 year career...

I'm also worried of the opposite - that it will encourage a small group of people to believe that they're doing effective advocacy challenging poor quality science by sending rude messages to academics on twitter. Telling people who, for example, have been mistreated at some CFS clinic that a...

I cringe every-time I see that slogan. It's really not good.

. What does "rigging baseline" mean? I don't understand it.

I didn't really see defence (I could well have missed it - I've found the last few days wading through twitter a bit dispiriting), but alongside the criticism I saw people talking about how the pain, suffering and hardship that's a part of ME/CFS can make bad behaviour understandable. But almost...

Twitter needs to add an easy one click button for 'please delete your tweet'.

The idea of using this metric seemed really bizarre to me. Who cares how many poorly designed trials of ineffective treatments there are? Thanks to John for providing the figures. It makes their value seem even more questionable.

Good to hear a lot of that @Jonathan Edwards I get the impression a lot of academics are appalled by the idea that their colleagues might be treated on twitter in the way that politicians are. That might partly reflect the fact that many seem appalled by the idea of being challenged by plebs...

I think that this is a much better tactic for them and much more difficult for us to respond to. Previously they were over-hyping things and it caused them problems. Now they're getting sympathetic coverage on the basis of real problems. I don't see how this can be to our advantage, especially...

edit: I don't know how much this post is the manifestation of a bad mood. Could that play into a narrative of dangerous interference in science? When it's been sold as a story of 'activists vs science', we're probably best off making it clear that it is 'poor science being challenged with the...

I think that we must be interpreting things differently. I saw this comment "Why would people who are sick attack medical researchers investigating their sickness?" as meaning that some people who are sick are attacking medical researchers investigating their sickness, not as a generalisation...

I'd avoid saying that now that we've seen what that twitter user has been sending (Quasar9uk). They were sending clear examples of abuse. It only takes a couple of people acting terribly for it to be legitimate to say that there are problems with the abuse of PACE trial researchers.