Search results

I think it's really good for us to have someone like Hilda Bastion take the time to look into things like this, and then post a blog that is really supportive of patients and our right to engage in the debate around issues like PACE. It shouldn't be controversial, but it is, and it's great that...

Yeah, but you can't say the DWP is an insurance company. Even if their policies and personnel seem overly influence by the insurance industry.

@Action for M.E. It sounds like you might be overlooking a more central problem with the toolkit, which is that it's being promoted to people as something that can help PwME achieve their employment goals when we don't have any evidence that this is true. There are also problems with the...

Does anyone know exactly what Monaghan asked the HRA to do? Is there are record of that?

We can't know that. It certainly wouldn't have helped him profit from his 'expertise' though.

I'd be interested to see where their remit is laid out in such a way that it compels an investigation in PACE to be like the one reported.

It's probably a mistake to even post this, but given the grating Establishment tone and reasoning of Montgomery's letter it's probably no surprise that he has just been awarded a knighthood: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/hra-chair-awarded-knighthood-new-year-honours-list/ The...

Have people posted the HRA's introductory page for this letter yet? Some annoying stuff there considering how slip-shod the letter sent was, eg: https://www.hra.nhs.uk/about-us/news-updates/pace-trial-hra-response-science-and-technology-committees-questions/ Re-hashing some of QMUL's spin...

Could be worth doing a Rapid Response to the article. If they've mischaracterised you that could mean they'd be more likely to publish your letter. Saying that, the BMJ does have a clear history of shittyness.

Yes, that 'it is not clear' phrasing was pretty annoying. This is from the most recent PACE 'FAQ':

BMJ coverage (from Nigel Hawkes and predictably terrible): https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l639 http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l639 "Whenever the arguments raised are answered, they spring upanew elsewhere. In recent years US activists have discoveredPACE and have...

Action for ME's statement is less than perfect but I didn't think it was bad, and it is good that they seem to recognise that they've made things around PACE much worse, and need to make some effort to mitigate the harm done.

So because they've been unable to defend their work they've consciously adopted a policy of avoiding debate? How is this mentality seen as acceptable?

http://sci-hub.tw/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18310583 Sci hub is amazing. Drives me crazy to think of the time I used to spend trying to access papers. Almost any paper available here: http://sci-hub.tw/

They are heavily linked to the SMC. They sometimes seem to play that down in relation to CFS, but I think that there are quite a few hints that they're stuffed full with SMC style prejudices.

It includes three 'to be appointed' slots. Presumably they've been filled though, if meetings have started.

That's an issue, but presumably would affect the control group too.

OT and not important: Their first Chief Excutive was Janet Wisely, and there is some info about her in this thread relating to SMILE/PACE...

This report seems to be a mix of confusion about what the criticisms made of PACE were and a presumption that if other supposedly authoritative sources said things were okay, they were okay. They don't provide any new information at all.

I thought that recent response to the complaint made about Cochrane's handling of CFS sounded terrible. I'm expecting the worst from them.