Search results

I started looking at METRIC and posted some comments here: https://www.s4me.info/threads/uk-21-june-2018-3-hour-me-debate-in-westminster-hall-secured-by-carol-monaghan.4468/page-20#post-85584 I think I've got some more notes I intended to write up but never got around to - one of those projects...

tbh, I was expecting more bad coverage than good. This is a weird situation for journalists to cover, and I see this debate as being part of us making baby steps towards revealing some deep problems with the institutions that many in UK society just instinctively trust. I see a lack of critical...

Thanks to everyone who put work into this debate. Especially those who have taken a leading role to work with Monaghan, but also everyone else who has contacted MPs, tried to raise awareness of the problems around PACE, etc. It does feel like we're continuing to make progress, even if it has...

Looks like it's open access, so you just had to click on the full text link in the top right of that page. Direct link: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1359105318781872?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&rfr_id=ori%3Arid%3Acrossref.org&rfr_dat=cr_pub%3Dpubmed

I'm expecting the Science Media Centre crew to be working behind the scenes at this point, rather than doing more that risks making them the story. They didn't do anything openly about Cochrane saying they wanted to withdraw Larun's Cochrane review.

I'm sure they're planning to push-back on this and present it as a dangerous example of Post-Truth politics & emotion threatening Science. I wonder if others in UK science are getting nervous about gambling the public reputation of UK science on the PACE trial?

I hope Monaghan has been briefed on the Cochrane issues - if so she should be able to knock back any attempt to defend PACE/CBT/GET with reference to Cochrane's work, and make anyone taking this approach look a bit silly.

House of Commons briefing for the debate: http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CDP-2019-0014/CDP-2019-0014.pdf This is what they say on Cochrane: Pretty appalling that they omitted the notice I mentioned above, or any information on the problems identified by Cochrane. Also...

I hope that any reference to Cochrane's work includes reference to this note on the Larun exercise review:

I've just been re-reading the motion and thinking about it, and I think great care is needed with this bit: "supports the suspension of Graded Exercise Therapy and Cognitive Behaviour Therapy as means of treatment". It's important to make clear that this is a suspension of recommending GET/CBT...

I agree with most of that, and maybe I should have been clearer that he said 'condition' not 'illness' (I'm not sure it makes much difference to me, but I can forget the distinctions of some of these terms) but I think that the 'but' he used in that sentence could be seen as implying there's...

Is there a full list of the signatories somewhere? Nina Andresen seems less than impressive: https://www.s4me.info/threads/article-me-patients-misunderstand-andresen-2018.3465/

Contrasting a psychological illness with "a real illness" in the second paragraph seems an unfortunate use of language.

I reckon most people would realise that my use of 'scumsuckers' to describe people we should be trying to communicate gently with was intended as a joke, illustrating what a difficult situation we're in when so many of the people with power over us that we need to try to reach out to and...

Creating any sort of unified media response from patient charities is going to be more difficult while we still do not know where Action for ME stand. It does seem that the PACE scandal has made them realise that they've made some mistakes in the past, but if they're still promoting Hazel...

Thanks for all of the work you've done David! If you don't mention Esther Crawley's name, than how will people googling her find it?! It's ridiculous that you've had to write so many blogs about the basic problems with her work to try to get UK authority figures to recognise them.

I expect that the PACE lot will do their best to present this as being dangerous political interference in science, like climate change deniers. In some ways, I wonder if it could have been better if the motion had been a bit more cautious, or focussed on a specific like the PACE recovery...

This isn't of huge interest, but I thought I'd post up for newer members who might be interested in reading a short summary from Sharpe. I find it kind of amazing to see how confidently they asserted their views on the basis of such flimsy evidence. They talk of providing 'positive...

That parliament website confused me too, but I think that the 'main chamber' section lists all the main chamber's business that day, rather than just being what comes before the others things listed.

Great work - thanks so much for all your campaigning Mike.