Search results

Sounds worrying about RME. Best wishes to everyone trying to improve things.

Some discussion related to this here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/personality-and-fatal-diseases-revisiting-a-scientific-scandal-2019-pelosi.8311 Could be worth also having a separate thread for the editorial?

That Pelosi review was utterly appalling.

This probably reflects his views about 'powerful placebo' - eg: double-blind is important for identifying the cause of symptoms, but questionnaire scores are a reliable measure of symptoms regardless of blinding! Therefore some sort of faked ritual that gets questionnaires to change shows that...

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2019/02/08/hilde-t-myrhaug-and-tone-hansen-co-producing-a-systematic-review-with-patients/ I thought that this was of interest for showing how patients can end up pushing for a more 'positive' presentation of results if they've had a positive experience with a...

Presumably the author, Chris Feguson, is the same person who wrote this piece that included concerns about PACE: https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-29/may-2016/our-struggle-between-science-and-pseudoscience

Best wishes to everyone out there who is living with health problems without having people close to them to lean on. Isolation can be such a strain for people in itself.

Saw that there was an accompanying editorial from David Marks, and an open letter calling for an independent investigation: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105318820931

Just to clarify, those excerpts were from Wessely's old piece about Eysenck, criticised on Coyne's blog, not the new Pelosi Eysenck article.

From Coyne's blog: https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/2016/05/05/when-simon-wessely-shoved-a-hans-eysenck-scandal-under-the-rug/ No mention of Pelosi in the special edition: https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/personality-and-individual-differences/vol/103 Maybe this is that delayed paper...

That's a couple of years old I think - maybe from around the time she got NIHR funding? I remember thinking it was funny.

Would you call Tuller's open letters an attempt at intimidation? The MP's speaking out? Almost any attempt to apply pressure to people can be viewed as intimidation. I just worry that when we talk about 'intimidation' we end up shifting the discussion away from the science and onto 'We get sent...

edit: PS - I'd assumed 'eminence based harassment' was tongue in cheek, and wasn't really replying specifically to comments here, but this was just something I'd been thinking about when reading a few different threads where people expressed concerns about all this. I'm wary of jumping to...

I was just going to check the date, thinking that it could indicate Larun expected to have a new Cochrane review out by then, but it seems that the page with the program is no longer on-line. Anyone got a copy?

That she'd already been involved in a report that led to patient groups walking away when she was given this position of authority at Cochrane seems like another indication of worrying attitudes to CFS patients at Cochrane.

I thought 'deidentified raw data' was a myth promoted by naive anti-science patients?

Thanks. Interesting that Larun had been working against patients for so long. Maybe that's relevant to the recent complaint about her work and the lack of patient involvement? I wonder how she ended up doing the Cochrane review?

Do you know why this person is in charge? Have they engaged in any meaningful debate about the way that they're pushing LP?

I'm sure I've ssen this PPS site criticised here before, but couldn't find it when searching so am risking a re-post: https://ppss.cumbria.nhs.uk/

Why is this 'national competence service' so incompetent, and repeatedly pushing LP?