Search results

I would be very cautious with making any complaint. Make sure you have tripple checked any claim you make so that you are certain you can prove what you are claiming is accurate. It's important that any criticisms of the reporting are cautiously made. Given what we know of the UK media it's...

Yes, that was my memory too. So Sharpe's reply doesn't contradict that information as complaining to editors about an article would generally not be seen as being the same as complaining to a researchers institution.

Who has said he has contacted the institutions of researchers who have had critical reviews of the PACE trial published, to complain about them? I've seen it claimed that he has contacted publications, but that's different. Maybe I missed something, but it would be good to have the exact...

Ensure that training means people are properly informed of the reasons for patient concern about PACE/CBT/GET/etc so that there isn't a continuation of old prejudices about patients' views.

Thanks and best wishes to her.

They chose to respond to an article that used concerns about on-line abuse of researchers to distract from and dismiss criticism of the PACE trial with direct personal abuse to those researchers. Quasar wasn't just swearing to himself in his own home. Personally, I've got no problem with...

True. I don't really know enough about other countries to comment - we gave the world PACE though! Has the quality of criticism of PACE/Wessely/etc on twitter gone down, or was it always bad but I just only looked at a few accounts from people I thought were good. It used to be that when I...

I feel like the Daily Mail author was trying to do a fair job, but rushing out an article about a topic they didn't have time to try to understand. Almost all of it is bad for us, but I think that's different to Kelland's piece which is clearly constructed as a piece of propaganda.

I think that the parliamentary vote could end up being unhelpful if we lose other battles and it comes to be presented as misguided political interference in science and medicine. I don't know much about a lot of the international advocacy efforts but I feel that a lot of the recent progress...

Yeah, I certainly didn't think that you were condoning quasar9uk's tweet. When I looked at his twitter feed quasar9uk was revelling in the Daily Mail article. It's just loathsome behaviour. I do take a UK-centric approach, and that is where things are worse. Given the influence of the UK...

There is abusive language on the internet related to almost all topics, and this is routinely much worse than what we've seen related to ME/CFS. Quasar's tweets should be largely irrelevant to the substantive problems around CFS research. But we've already seen how damaging the abuse narrative...

The ICO already classes some requests related to CFS as vexatious seemingly for no reason other than that the request is related to CFS and there is a concern about a campaign of intimidation. Things are already really bad for us, and tweets like this are going to make them even worse. We need...

Thanks for that. For some reason I really had difficulty taking it in. That doesn't sound hopeful to me. "The risk that physical exercise might be harmful in ME/CFS, is the crucial point in the debate." I don't think that this is right - at least, not 'harm' in the limited medical sense.

That will not be useful when someone is making a CFS related FOI and quasar9uk's tweets are being quoted to the ICO! Who is going to be persuaded that Sharpe's work is causing problems for patients by quasar9uk's tweets? Anything like this is really harmful. There's nothing 'mixed' about...

I think that it's important people don't underestimate how harmful this stuff is for us. Even before the recent press coverage, PACE trial critics being viewed as 'radical and abusive' was an important impediment to making progress with the science. Excellent and skilled advocates being well...

That @quasar9uk tweeter is vile.

David Tuller is silencing us by asking us questions and offering to place any responses we make unedited alongside his own work!

Trying to understand exactly what was said via google translate has hurt my mind. Anyone got a sense of what this implies for Cochrane? I'm still expecting bad things.

I've got no idea whether Kelland's other work has problems with it or not, but I think it's well worth sticking to the areas where we're 100% certain that we're right.

I think some of the frustration in this thread is stemming from people starting with different assumptions about the way a discussion on these sorts of matters should take place. It could be that there's some sort of cultural consensus on S4ME that means we can forget our way can seem a bit...