Search results

But could we take advantage of it and use the term by turning it around and using it as an admission of medical ignorance.

When people talk about the "quiet majority" they usually mean that they believe other people agree with them and are just not speaking out. But normally with no evidence of that beyond the strength of their own beliefs. It always seems like an unreasonable argument to me.

I wonder if concerns that a future review process may be more rigorous and bring up the issues again means that Crawley went through the backdoor to approve the full trial via a protocol change on the existing ethical permission.

Another Tuller article on the subject. This time the COPE forum has responded suggesting more clarification is needed. They have clearly taken the misdirection from the BMJ in terms of believing it is a data set from an existing service but have said that needs to be confirmed...

I would see it differently as a professor at Bristol university she is a senior member of staff and is making statements that are highly related to her professional activity at Bristol. Thus to me she is speaking as a senior employee of Bristol university and hence giving the institutions view...

Oh dear I think they should stay away from stats. From what I remember with the PACE mediation model they failed to model important temporal aspects. Also I seem to remember that the scales they use broke the basic assumptions of the methods. But mediation models as whole seem to be a bad idea...

Although it may not benefit anyone if someone returns to work whilst still infectious and more people are ill. They may be at their desks but probably not functional. But then if managers are measured on sick days rather than productivity that is all they care about.

When the anti-transparancy stuff came out it seemed to me more about supporting academic careers than good science. There were arguments about those who collect data having 'rights' over the data to be the first to publish however slow. To me that seems unethical - permissions (and funding) were...

I think that in itself makes it not a service evaluation from: http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/docs/DefiningResearchTable_Oct2017-1.pdf I wonder if another important question is are they still offering this as a service.

This attitude really really annoys me. What does it mean to have "elements of both physiological and psychological dysfunction". Without proposing any form of mechanism it strikes me as a meaningless statement designed to gloss over issues and avoid having to have any form of coherent thought...

That thread would make me worry about his mental health sounds very like the type of incoherent letters written by someone I know with severe issues.

It does look pretty dodgy though when questions of Bristol University having ethical permission to carry out a trial rather than investigating they put pressure on the institution that the journalist who raised the questions comes from to shut him up. It fails the headline test which is a good...

Yes from what I remember that is clear in the paper but she would probably be claiming that that was in her role running the service rather than her roll as a researcher. It all gets very tenuous of course.

I think their claim would be that the data is collected by the service and then handed over to researchers in an anonymised form. What this fails to mention is that the researchers are testing an extension to an existing service rather than evaluating a current one. They are trying to suggest...

At the end of the article he refers to a COPE document https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/COPE%20Forum%20Agenda%20and%20materials%2013_11_17_FINAL_2.pdf which I though summarised the issue of having no ethical permission for trialling service innovations in a very poor way that is...

I think that is what I am getting at but they could have just used a guess.

I have the impression that this group have hyped up tests before when they were on small samples. But perhaps this is a repeat of the same hype.

But there is a principle that you look at techniques and make an assessment about whether they are likely to work and hence worth testing. LP is not really credible but given its technique it is likely patients will claim it helps. There is no science behind NLP. The LP talks about Adrenalin...

A question: We have seen a number of small scale studies over the years looking for biomarkers including immune system studies and brain scans. There are a few bigger studies as well. Which of the results do you think may be interesting in terms of potential to show core mechanisms and hence...

One of the things I was wondering about were the power calculations and whether they were redone between the feasibility and full trial as this would show that they looked at the data. The paragraph in the trial protocol seemed vague: I believe the power calculation requires some effect size...