Search results

Not seen that before. Surely that amounts to a form of fraudulent bias, in a supposedly independent journal?

MS: "Apologies. I wasn't suggesting you were. But sadly David Tuller is paid to trash this research. Ask him." Wrong again. @dave30th is being paid to expose the truth, and the truth is that the research is trash. If the truth were that we were all wrong, and PACE really was a magic cure (ha!)...

MS: "Persistence is good up to a point and then becomes just annoying." Doesn't it just ... especially when the persisting person is right and you are wrong, so very wrong.

Yes. Still post the links, but screenshots also.

I think social media is proving their undoing, because once upon a time the linguistic chicanery they keep trying here worked wonders for them. Seem to be finding it more difficult now though.

Thank goodness we have all the written evidence for it then, else where would we all be ??? :rolleyes::)

SW: "But I am pretty sure I wasn’t a centre leader." Huh? I know it's a while ago now, but is being a centre leader such a run of the mill role that someone would not - I mean really not - recall if they held that role or not? I'm finding this very hard to take seriously. Indeed I find it a...

I think it's fair enough. I fear walking in front of a moving bus, and rightly so - it's a very healthy fear, and is a preservation trait I'm very happy to go along with in such situations. PwME's fear is not "fear of exercise" but "healthy fear of excessive exercise", the threshold (potentially...

Trouble is, their approach to trialling only has some tenuous credibility if you know absolutely for sure beforehand the underlying condition is very definitely attributable to false illness beliefs. So you cannot magically extend that trialling approach to supposedly prove the illness is due to...

And most certainly not respected.

That is so very true. If this were to ever go before a jury one day, I think much of this would be demonstrable "beyond a reasonable doubt". Also worth noting that in UK law guilt can be established on circumstantial evidence alone, if a strong enough case can be put together relying only on...

... no one? Edit: i.e. There always seems to be someone ... somewhere ... :rolleyes:

And yet SW seemed to think it was ... :rolleyes:

Get that alone in front of an independent enquiry, and SW will really have to hope he can substantiate what he says here.

Yes, I've pondered this. I think some of them mistake this for putting their mind into the minds of others. For some there seems to be a built in arrogance that makes true empathy very unlikely.

It's people who have been treated like sh*t for many years, to some degree giving in to being human.

I think it is generally known as "bullshit baffles brains".

Excellent! Big welcome @Mike Godwin :)

I think what they are achieving is a very good audit trail of some very competent questioning and critiques of their work, interspersed with some very shallow response from themselves.

It's as if any finding that contradicts what they "know" must be right, gets dismissed out of hand because they therefore "know" it must be a rogue finding, and as such can just be ignored. Which yet again is much closer to religion than science.