Search results

I do think she should be challenged on who because she is labeling people so she needs to be specific. Maybe there is a group of anti-science people who are attacking her but we've not seen that. What we see is patients and academics criticizing her methodology and asking for more information...

I would be surprised if she hasn't given it is very easy to get emotional and act inappropriately when you feel your child isn't getting good care. The thing that will stop that is parents of children who have ME learn to be careful of the authorities and manage them. I think we should be...

I think she didn't realize people would actually look at her work in detail and ask questions. Maybe a few patients but not other academics. But then PACE was questioned and academics (in the US) spoke out. Now she is in a difficult position of having done bad work played loose with ethical...

I'm not sure that it is that simple for them. For example the paper she did where she appears not to have ethics approval (http://www.virology.ws/2017/08/28/trial-by-error-no-ethical-review-of-crawley-school-absence-study/) had two other Bristol university professors (Prof Emond and Prof Sterne)...

I've not had a chance to read the paper yet but will hopefully this week. It looks very interesting as does the seahorse testing thing.

There were some positive tweets from a few MPs

Given her slide with a threatening letter came from the front page of the sunday times this is not at all surprising. Its so clearly a device to try to stop her work being examined in detail. Her real problem is that her work doesn't stand up to scrutiny and I think there are skeletons around...

You could try the ethics committee as well as Bristol University. But if they don't release them it does suggest that they know something is wrong.

Anonymisation and Re-identification is an interesting and quite active research area. But Crawley isn't adding to it my making baseless claims. If I remember correctly the information tribunal were not impressed by Anderson's claims that reidentification would be possible with the PACE data...

I think if anyone is pulling together published work into a treatment guide it will be a bit strange. It will need to talk of things like CBT/GET to get past the gatekeepers at the BMJ. So as you say a move forward but not as big a step as we would like.

Yes that doesn't seem enough to really tell. I do feel someone should do a massive replication project to look at all the interesting results with many more people and controls to see what is reliable.

I think health services like CBT because its cheap and easy to deliver and makes them think they are doing something useful. But that does suggest that it may be less effective than a good therapist. I suspect it is a real problem running any trials where you are basically reliant on the skills...

I think one of the big issues that may come up in this type of testing is the dynamic nature of the disease. So after rest I wonder if effects are not there until after some level of exertion. However, going to give blood can be quite an exertion depending where people have to go, how much help...

Random forest techniques are quite a popular classification technique in machine learning.

One thing I've been looking at recently (with help!) using very different data is to assess whether a particular feature is any good. That is does the data suggest a feature is IID (independently identically distributed). It feels like such tests would be good on this data as I think it would...

Could there be questions about ethical approval The timings for the trial were: 1) Ethics committee approved something sept 2010 2) Randomisation for feasibility study trial started sept 2010 3) Ethic committee approved amended protocol May 2011 4) Trial was registered July 2012 (but using...

From the paper This looks dodgy and could bias results in that giving results over the phone could lead to additional response bias. Especially if the children had a perception that there is a 'right answer' that the researchers are after.

I would describe the Smile trial as a bit like a magic trick. The basic methodology is one of ask people how they feel and how they function. Use the Lightning process to tell them they can think themselves better if they ignore symptoms. Then ask them how they feel and how they function. Maybe...

Full open paper http://adc.bmj.com/content/early/2017/09/20/archdischild-2017-313375 (Moderator note: see this post for an alternative link to the paper and links to related threads)

I think her audience were starting to get the feeling that something is up from twitter responses. The question is how long Bristol university and her colleagues continue to support her. Having met her as a doctor she does come across as convincing before you think about what she is saying.