Search results

Maybe, but I've spent a lot of time watching, reading and engaging in attempts to progress patient advocacy over the last decade, and when there are certain things that seem to keep being counter-productive I reckon it's worth warning people about this so that they can hopefully have more...

I was just saying why I think that certain approaches are more and less useful for advocacy efforts. I'm not expecting all patients to start taking the approach that I think is best (I know that I still fail to do so myself).

For the above reasons I'd actually avoid talking about 'lies', even when it's clear that someone is promoting self-serving falsehoods. It's very difficult to be certain that someone is lying rather than just misguided, and accusations of 'lies' can be a distraction from what can be readily proven.

Yes, I don't think that there's any reason to avoid making strong criticisms that can be fully backed up, and I think that's far more effective and powerful way of criticising than slipping into the use of rhetoric that allows our concerns to be disputed, or viewed as merely a matter of opinion.

Thanks for that. The more of these I read, the more I think that I need to go through them methodically myself. Yeah.... they were careful. http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(11)60172-4/fulltext

Fiona Fox? Tracey Brown? I don't remember seeing Trish Groves mentioned as being a part of that group.

? I didn't know that Groves was a part of that group. Where did you hear that?

I've not been able to get the full text for this, but thought that it might be of interest to people: https://www.magonlinelibrary.com/doi/abs/10.12968/bjhc.2018.24.3.112 It looks likely that it is sympathetic. The author previously wrote this...

Not Sharpe, but White was classed as CMO by Swiss Re for a conference last year.

In the past, that hasn't been the case, and there are examples of quotes from forums being used to help excuse the refusal to release PACE data. Things may have changed since the PACE authors lost to Matthees at the information tribunal, but imo it's still worth being a bit cautious about this...

They did declare their insurances COIs in the Lancet paper, and there was still very little scrutiny from the academics first looking at the paper.

Could be a result of Tuller asking people avoid doing comedy names, or drawing attention to them?

Good to see it has ticked up more rapidly over the last few days. Still 45% to get though!

It's just a letter to the journal, not a paper published by them.

I really wonder if White was the only one of them who understood PACE. He was quick to bow out when he realised people weren't falling for the BS anymore. The rest of them seem to just be reciting White's spin, without really understanding it or its weak spots.

Thanks Mike. Well done with the coverage.

I think that this was her earlier article: https://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.psykologtidsskriftet.no/index.php%3Fseks_id%3D505296%26a%3D3&prev=search She doesn't seem particularly thoughtful.

I wonder if they meant the 'original' reanalysis the PACE team put on their website after the tribunal forced some data out?

No, it must be some unfamous third sister. Tracey Brown is not a sister, but was a part of RCP/LM before moving to Sense About Science. Clare Fox is the famous sister: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claire_Fox

I knew I'd read her or Clare claim this, but then wasn't able to find it to cite. Thanks to both of you for posting. I've always wondered if that was really a reference to her sister, who there are repeated references to having CFS, eg: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3492714/