Search results

I've not seen any press coverage of this debate which is a shame. Has anyone else seen any? Were there any press releases?

I'm not convinced they will come just by having a fund available. Two things happen; the first is that academics with a particular fashionable technique pile in (or even try to use such funding to get in with the latest fashion); the other is as time goes on the MRC will want to show it is...

I am always interested to see their reasoning to try to justify their methodology and changes. I keep feeling they may say something interesting - they just haven't yet.

Given he works for Oxford and it was written as part of his job (i.e. backing his research) I would question whether it should be private (at least I would have thought it would be subject to the FoI act).

You can do thing like pull in experts get them talking, discussing, throwing around ideas and then fund some exploration of some of those ideas. Things rarely happen by chance. In other areas research councils do more to try to start or encourage research in important areas or try to shake it up...

I think they have deleted that tweet now.

I think there was a big lobbying campaign for the Lords debate the various Lords speaking in support of PACE were clearly parroting the defense that the PACE team had given them.

The concerning funding body is the NIHR which is funding Crawley's work and funds her as a senior fellow.

I think there are two things with the MRC. The first is a governance issue since the MRC signed off on PACE and continued to support it. There head of governance gave evidence in the information tribunal to try to block the release of data. This suggests a degree of incompetence of cover up and...

I think the lack of objective measures in the outcomes section means that they will accept poor quality research such as PACE. Its critical that they understand this.

A huge thanks to @Keela Too for making sure all the tweets are captured. Here are documents capturing all of them. I've put up the rest now: Posts 1-100 https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets1.pdf Posts 100-200 https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets2.pdf Posts 200-300...

The captured tweets are at these links and can be accessed from outside of the forum (unlike attachments). But no one can edit. https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets1.pdf https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets2.pdf https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets3.pdf...

Another batch of screen captures (thanks to @Keela Too ) https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets4.pdf https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets5.pdf https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets6.pdf https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets7.pdf

@Keela Too put together some documents of the tweets they can be got here https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets1.pdf https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets2.pdf https://www.s4me.info/docs/SharpeTweets3.pdf

From the TSC committee meeting #8 (page 10) https://www.dropbox.com/s/1b86k0pvnymko16/TSC.zip?dl=0&file_subpath=%2F20090429+TSC.pdf "The need to carefully select the person who writes the editorial on the main paper was also discussed."

No the forum just has the URL to the tweet. Linking to the tweet causes it to be embedded in the web page by your web browser getting the content from twitter.

I think that when he publicly jumps ship we know we have won. He seems to do a fair bit of behind the scenes lobbying and I suspect that is still going on. But I think he will be concerned for how he is viewed in a historical context.

Would a positive outcome give support for their model? If there were other potential models that were equally plausible then it would only provide support as one of a set of possible models. So to design a good experiment you need to think of other plausible explanations and design a hypothesis...

g I think they refer to a model in their CBT and GET manuals. But I don't think I would call it a model as its a few boxes with lines between them. That is I don't think there is enough to tie down what they are saying.

I don't think Sharpe understands what is wrong. Maybe he really does believe that the paper explains everything and should convince people. But it seems that when outsiders look they pick holes and don't like the methodology.