Search results

All things considered, isn't the complaint something of an own goal? Surely the report must by now be at the printers (edit - metaphorically speaking), or already released for pre-publication reading by those entitled to preview. Could CS have had any further influence on input? All that seems...

The chairman needs to address any issues arising out of this before the final report is published if there turn out to be any substantive modifications to the draft weakening the position previously taken. The fact that CS has been removed from the committee for broadly supporting the draft...

The question that arises in that case is, did the chairman look at the activities of other members to ensure that all were held to the same standard, regardless of whether a complaint had been made?

I think the Chairman needs to indicate whether there were any representations made to him on the role of CS, or any lobbying for his removal. In the interests of transparency.

I thought it had always seemed clear that the main object of some in differentiating between Long Covid and ME was to justify more favourable treatment, either in terms of medical provision or financial arrangements, than was available to those with ME.

Anyone interested in the history of Healthwatch might try Martin Walker's book Dirty Medicine. It can be found on the internet. Parts of it might even be true. It is hard to be sure. Healthwatch was originally Campaign against Health Fraud until it changed its name. The other fascinating name...

I think we just have to accept that AfME has always held views and values which differ from ours. Their predecessor organisation used to write nonsense in 1988 or whenever it was, and nothing has changed Presumably there "members" expect no more.

I'm not sure that I entirely agree. Most of the time when referring to "chronic fatigue" the reference is to the symptom rather than the disease, and that seems a legitimate use. There is at least one obvious inappropriate use in the "key points" but that may merely be a slip.

the problem with that client list is that, so far as I can see, it does not provide information as to the nature of the work or the date. If there was a single corporate speech given in, say, 2015 it would not be too significant. There are some other interesting clients. Allied Dunbar. AXA...

We would need to go back to the politicking in the early days of Healthwatch round about 1990. There is information about , but I will have to think about it. The controversy was originally around Caroline Richmond who appeared to be do the original legwork but then was ousted. Her views on ME...

It is, I suppose, possible that the nature of the complaint has been inadequately or mis-reported in the newspaper. If, for the sake of argument, we accept the report at face value it is interesting to consider what a finding in favour of the complainant would imply. AfME was encouraging...

The lawyers will love that. Why would the law discriminate against those with practically identical symptoms.

Thinking this through, the article looks very strange. It appears that it must be the person who filed the complaint who briefed the Telegraph. AfME apparently do not yet have full particulars of the alleged breach of duty. The only information given is that AfMe allegedly acted contrary to...

In fairness to the guy these ideas were probably cutting edge, state of the art, when his career was at its height. When would that have been? 1980's? those he cites- Kroenke and Katon, were going strong.

It is strange. It is hard to see the complaint as more than a diversionary tactic. What other tactical or strategic purpose could it serve? The charity commission is unlikely to take the matter seriously. The most obvious possible use is for someone, when the NICE guidelines are issued, to say...

Are you sure there are not people other than Alwan whom it might be better to try to contact? She may have learned something over the course of the last year but at the outset she seemed very eager to distinguish long covid from ME, for reasons which seemed neither scientific, nor empirical...

I presumed that "fibromyalgianess" was innovatory, but it seems it has been used before Fibromyalgianess - PubMed (nih.gov) I'm not sure what is the point of the ness.

Yes. But they obtained this idea from the US. My main problem with Komaroff is that he might find it easier to call out some UK psychiatrists than Professors at Harvard.

That poses a very significant question. In 1957ish in anticipation of the Asian flu's arrival in the US Imboden, Canter and Cluff conducted a prospective trial, inadequate as it was, which led to the conclusion that long term sequelae were psychiatric in nature. The follow up period was about 6...

Will they be measuring what is important, or making important what they can measure?