Search results

@Docsimsim has just joined here as well.

It surprise me that anyone would think of combining the conferences. The CMRC is intended to be researchers where as BACME is for practitioners so the subjects would be very different. However, I would consider it a positive thing if for example people who go the the BACME conference heard a...

From the quotes in @Esther12 message I'm assuming with PACE they replaced the protocol with the statistical analysis plan. I think they failed to document the protocol changes in the SAP. I think a blind review of data could suggests different stats techniques should apply for example, due...

It was the data monitoring committee (not sure what that is!) Also in the stats plan

I believe there was something about masked data being made available to the TSC (or a different committee) that was mentioned in the stats analysis plan and hence prior to approval.

I assumed her 'new role' was simply becoming a professor either got the promotion doesn't need to serve on committees or a slightly different was of saying 'wants to spend more time with her family'

That looks interesting in that it's in an unusual place the website appears to be a legal one. In the "who are we" section they say:

I would see it as a step in the right direction. Good news is if Chris Ponting gets a decent amount of funding for a well constructed research project. From what I've heard he is good so I have faith that he can construct the project but as always funding may be the issue.

So IiME have a closed session before the main conference for researchers to exchange early results. Also I think it would be good to have smaller sessions between researchers from different fields to try to build research proposals across the fields. But yes it would be good to be open for the...

I think with the latest changes it may be interesting to attend although in the past non-researcher sessions were limited. But even if they have a shorter session that may prove interesting now they are having more patient involvement on the board. There may be important lessons from PACE (in...

I think more importantly I think Chris Ponting looks like a good researcher and one who has been supportive of people with ME. I take this as a very positive signal.

I wouldn't read it that way. I would see it as a call to understand mechanism with the second part separating out potential treatments from mechanism understanding.

Looks positive.

It affects this forum as well I've not had time to catch up with the act but need to soon for work. I believe the best practice for privacy has been to have opt in for contact rather than opt out for some time.

I think its a way to avoid proper scrutiny from the ethics committee. I had assumed that phase 1 trials were effectively testing feasibility. I did hear that Bristol Universities medical dept failed to get a 5 star rating and that Bristol has a habit of shutting non-five star rated...

I suspect that is a breach of the DPA unless the CCTV is collected for that purpose and people agree or are warned.

I think journals just seem to make up rules but never expect to take the difficult decisions to enforce them. They saw a get out with the response from Bristol so went with it.

If they have been hacked and your personal information disclosed one thing to ask for is that they pay for credit checking services.

He may be going on somewhere else to do more with ME. We need the best people to come in and they may not stay but if they make a difference whilst here and carry the message on to other places and other researchers then that is important.

I think also small initial trials often have better results than larger follow up trials (don't know why could be something to do with patient selection?)