Search results

I agree. I think any website involved in naming and shaming would run a considerable risk concerning libel. I certainly wouldn't want to take the risk here. Also we don't know about the truth of any comments here. I also don't think it is an effective advocacy tool. Personal attacks on doctors...

It looks like they have deleted the twitter account this time.

There is still this article https://forbetterscience.com/2018/09/10/abderrahmane-kaidi-leaves-bristol-after-misconduct-findings/ But lets not forget Bristol University tried to shut @dave30th up rather than investigate Crawley and Jonathan Sterne for doing research without ethics approval. So...

I think we opened to the public on the 29th of October 2017 (we had 79 registrations that day). The site first went up on the 15th of October as a very basic bit of forum software.

I think that privacy statement would be in violation of GDPR which must be followed with the collection of data from all EU (inc UK) citizens. You cannot change the use for which personal data is collected and you need to get explicit consent for a use.

Perhaps defending the 'rights' of those institutions who pay vast fees for libraries to get the journal. Or perhaps those who pay vast fees for open access (e.g. the PACE team).

So he is still misleading patients when if is has any slight level of competence he knows that the 3rd claim for fully recovered has no basis in any evidence. Yet he is still accusing patients. Given this he is clearly not a fit person to hold a senior role or to advise the government.

HADS is a bad scale and from what I remember of the questions its not good at distinguishing between people with depression and people who are ill. for example questions include: I still enjoy the things I used to enjoy: - Not I would enjoy things if I had the physical ability to do them...

Maybe it becomes a way of avoiding helping the MRC and then he hopes the data will never be shared. I suspect he knows he is making a fool of himself in his defense of PACE and so wants a way out. In the end he is an academic and therefore needs to pull research grants in and write papers. His...

I find it worrying that someone who was happy using the CFQ is designing a scale (i assume with a random set of questions). Sharpe has no notion of what is necessary for a scale if he did he wouldn't have used the CFQ and certainly wouldn't have switched scoring schemes with the claim it 'gives...

I think this is interesting. In the past I have complained to the BBC about their coverage of PACE/Crawleys work and their failure to put other view points. Being the BBC they dismiss such complaints claiming they have over coverage that balances (which they don't). So this ruling from ofcom is...

Is that the medical equivalent of the Morecambe and Wise's sketch to i'm playing all the right notes just not in the right order?

Cochrane has become a fairly standard defense from the PACE team which is one of the reasons I think they (or probably the SMC) wrote at least a draft of that letter.

I assumed she meant the third as the individual patient data review that hasn't been published yet. PACE people seemed to claim it backs up their claims even though it isn't published.

My feeling is that she has not read anything about the PACE trial but just signed the letter (without thought). She may well have passed things down to one of the others in the MRC. But the letter sounds just like one drafted by QMUL or the SMC.

I think they also do personal pricing . They may have a threshold of stock vs sales when they try to reduce stock in the warehouse even at a loss. For some older books they also do print on demand.

I suspect few academics in the UK who look towards the MRC for funding will want to get involved.

They show no sign of understanding the criticisms because they are not addressed in any public statement and their statement would suggest that they are unaware of the methodological criticisms as they point to other trial results. It may be that they do understand and are just covering up but...

I think one of the most worrying things is that the MRC isn't even trying to understand what the criticisms are let alone address them. This shows that they have no intent of applying any form of governance to the research they fund and as long as there are reviews an a committee then no...

Does his Sussex group have any members? If so do they support that approach and have they asked questions of it?