Search results

Unfortunately Phil Hammond is Private Eye's 'MD', and works at Crawley's clinic.

It would be good if there was some way to have gotten a prize to someone like Robert Courtney, for his work.

That's interesting. Thanks Robert. Weird that this was the only line they corrected.

WDDTY has quite a reputation for quackery and junk-science, and there's some odd stuff and inaccuracies in there. I didn't know Myhill was a columnist there.

The minutes also include mention of concern that those in the NHS are promoting the Lightning Process. I've got some concern that the Action for ME International Advocacy efforts could be a bit blundering. So far we've not seen anyone from the charity who seems to really know what they're...

When I was looking for something else, Wessely's book on clinical trials came up, and I thought that this section could be of interest to people. I know @Jonathan Edwards mentioned being curious about what the book said about blinding.

Thought you might be interested in this from KCL: "• 2003: £6.6M; Medical Research Council and Department of Health. RCT of CBT, GET for CFS (PACE trial). PI at KCL: T Chalder" https://impact.ref.ac.uk/CaseStudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id=41185 Pointed out by @Suffolkres

Any stupid behaviour/instincts/impulses are likely to be unhelpful for ones health in some ways, but I don't see any good evidence particularly linking CFS and type A personalities. re the blog claiming that they note lots of type A sorts: I think that the prejudices about CFS can mean that...

Good work getting in there - I think that this group is involved with some researchers who've promoted GET, so my instinct would have been to just grumble about their hypocrisy from the side-lines, Great to see people being able to make a more positive contribution.

@ME/CFS : Thanks for the additional info, and for being open to being contacted with further queries and suggestions. People here tend to be rightly wary of any sort of positive spin on research.

Seven years on: I bet the PACE researchers wish they hadn't written that narky letter now. I'm sure there are other examples of people who had little concerns about PACE, got heavy push-back from PACE researchers, and that helped prompt them into digging more deeply into it. Can't remember who...

Amazing that the BMJ still hasn't responded to concerns about this. What are they playing at? PS: I don't mind SEID!

That the only change they made was to the CDC sentence, when the Forward ME letter referred to far more than just that, makes me think it might be the CDC instead. Who knows though. I suspect that the SMC will not be keen to be transparent on this.

You could even request a copy of any correspondence with the SMC?

The SMC factsheet now says: "Updated 03/05/2018" It looks like they were contacted by the CDC? What a surprise.

He wasn't stating that the do not have ME, but he was stating that their subset of patients who fulfilled a (somewhat questionable) ME criteria only came from the group of patients who were selected via the Oxford criteria, which required that fatigue was their primary symptom.

If they want a psychiatrist on the committee, can anyone think of a decent UK psychiatrist for this? Maybe trying to encourage a good choice would be the best way of avoiding a bad choice?

Probably would still be helpful to have people reading them carefully, writing letters to journals pointing out the problems, etc? It is dispiriting that standards in journals aren't already higher, and letters are such a poor why of having any meaningful debate, but if they keep coming, and the...

Some of that reminds me of claims from other research that weren't solid. Also, seems odd to present those sorts of changes (if they are present) as brain damage. Different experiences and circumstances are going to lead to changes in how peoples' brains work, but is that always damage?

If some were just interested patients, are there any issues with posting names?