Search results

Who does take responsibility then, and formally provide such approval?

Or maybe a month ago. Either way it's recent. https://cmd.cochrane.org/news/google-hangout-ketamine-mood-disorders

Better twice than not at all :).

I would like to think that Cochrane may be learning from this experience, that standard responses tend to be rooted in emotive dogma rather than sound science. With a bit of luck they will be as p*ssed off with being treated like that as PwME are, and maybe gained some insight from it. The fact...

You should not be so rude @NelliePledge ... to the many very decent horses there are in the world :).

@TiredSam's comment was tongue-in-cheek I'm certain, as he also will be very aware who the bell ringer was.

Where actually is the note? Interesting to see they do openly credit Robert Courtney. Basically the authors failed dismally, Cochrane now know they cannot get away with a whitewash, and this is their version of "the withdrawal method" :p. It's sh*t. Nice ambition. Interesting ambiguity...

That's what I was chasing down, but decided it may not be such a big deal. The score of 18 for SHAI is as they describe, just in clinical range. i.e Just out of the no-health-anxiety region. So they took a sample of people with CFS having at least some health anxiety (which I felt would likely...

Without objective measures for both entry and outcome, claims of PF improvements are nonsensical.

From this ... http://www.archivespp.pl/uploads/images/2016_18_3/68Kocjan__Archives_PP_3_2016.pdf ... the SHAI scoring looks to be ...

No, there were at least 6 sessions, but don't seem to say how many total. Only that 2/10 pulled out at session 6.

What am I misunderstanding here. To me the first sentence seems to be saying all the participants had an anxiety score > 18 and all had CFS. The second sentence see to be saying the same thing except 42% not 100%. I know I'm misreading this but not sure how.

Wording is a bit fluffy, but to me the target date pertains the the decision. If it relates instead to it having been through the editorial process, then it's down to how good they are at making decisions.

Yep. And PACE will be retracted; NICE will withdraw GET and CBT from the current guideline, MS & EC will sincerely apologies to PwME and promise to put things right; the SMC will apologise and start reporting everything honestly; and my backside will fit into trousers with a 30 inch waist!

True, but I think we must be past the cut-off point for seeing anything on the 29th? ETA: Ah, a bit slow. I guess that's the point you are making :).

"which we anticipate will be towards the end of November 2018" Maybe the scale is in milliseconds.

Excellent. Good to see you here @Naomi10 :).

Yes, I noted long time back that "the taxman" invariably seemed to send bad news timed to arrive on a Friday, so you had to stew (and maybe cool down?!) over the weekend before any chance of talking to them on Mon.

I can only guess they are including the 'recoverers' amongst the 2/3 who improve? So 1/3 do not improve (so how many get worse?).

I'm guessing 30 Nov (18!).