Search results

It's up to you. I can only say that I didn't see it how you describe. It is great work, Graham. I am being hypercritical after you done so much

No, Wessely wasn't on any of the trial committees. I think this idea of getting the evidence to fit their expectations is absolutely right. They started the whole process as we saw from their application to the MRC with certain results in mind. Hey presto, what did their (amended) analysis...

That raises the question about how well briefed they were on the TSC and DMEC when they agreed to the changes to the protocol, and the minutes suggest they were not at all briefed.

I think, though, @Graham it needs to be consistent. You point at the mark after 65 for 65, but before 60 and before 85 for those numbers. They should all either be pointing before or after. Great job again, though, thanks.

Oh, that's interesting: he does show in the Twitter thread on here, but not for me in the browser.

I posted a link to him yesterday. He's not showing in the thread now of course because I am blocked. His retweets this morning are interesting. And Wonder if they'll be discussing PACE.

Hehe. Yeah, I'm distraught.

Yeah, member of the blocked by Michael team. Seems his Twitter charm offensive may be over. Details viewable in another browser or in stealth mode, of course.

That is interesting, thank you.

As he is someone employed by the Priory group to provide CBT for ME, I hope he declared his interest.

I think I have now succeeded in shifting this argument. The ICO has said in her latest submission to the Tribunal that QMUL must now show either that it is impossible to provide patient-level data without the input from someone who took part in PACE, or that a QMUL statistician could provide the...

No, really, Barry, it's important we get this right. The raw data are safely stored and locked up in a cabinet. Nothing has been lost or mislaid or anything like that. The question is around a legal definition only.

May be of interest. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0238-4 Abstract Viral infections continue to represent major challenges to public health, and an enhanced mechanistic understanding of the processes that contribute to viral life cycles is necessary for the development of new...

I've done a few tweets on it, if anyone is interested.

This study is interesting, and so are the responses by Wessely and Sharpe. https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(99)80332-5/pdf

Yes, this is something I have long argued: merely by taking patients from the clinics, they were skewing the sample. Those clinics were set up to provide CBT-GET. The sample ignored people like me who knew there is no treatment.

It's good that Carol is raising the issues about PACE, but the data have never been lost. No one disputes the raw data are locked securely in filing cabinets in a QMUL-operated building at St. Bartholomew’s Hospital. The question raised by my FOIA request is whether QMUL has the means to...

It is really good, Graham. Thanks, and well done.

I know the minutes for the first couple of meetings were drafted by Sharpe. It's possible he did them all, though it's not publically (sic) known. He uses 'equipoise' in his (false and misleading) COI statement.

It says on the page re CBT-GET 'It’s very important to note that there is no published research into the effectiveness of GET and/or CBT for those who are severely affected by M.E.' FINE wasn't explicitly CBT-GET but 'home delivered pragmatic rehabilitation—a programme of gradually increasing...