Search results

Which is why the debate is crucial ... sincerely hope Carol Monaghan makes that point very clear at the outset.

At least it's not been "airbrushed out". I guess the thing here is, this is a political journalist not a science one, so maybe the SMC don't have much traction here.

But they do not say what causes what. The inference they want people to take away, is that lower effort investment is driven by the false illness belief. But from the abstract at least I don't think there is anything supporting that. They don't mention the other possibility of course, that the...

I obviously don't know, and am not asking, the details, but in a way your discomfort feels indicative of some of the indirect ways the PACE trial has led to stress, at the very least, for many PwME.

My MP is as useful as a chocolate teapot when it comes to ME, but I've given it a shot anyway: Dear ....., My wife and I are constituents of yours; my wife suffers from ME (myalgic encephalomyelitis). It would be immensely beneficial if you could attend this debate please, both for your...

Pre-empted my question. Presumably in principle you could have a heart that has large volume but low stroke capacity. But I think you are saying here that if you notionally started off with a "low cardiac volume" heart empty of fluid, and then measured how much it took to fill it up, that volume...

Beautifully written indeed.

I'm afraid I've already gone past that in hexadecimal ... heading towards 41 now :rolleyes:.

I also wonder if consideration needs to be given, when making FOI requests of trial data, to avoid asking for data that needs much unravelling from amongs other data. Taking an extreme case by way of illustration, if you asked for everything, there would be no unravelling needed by the data...

Agreed. Would be good if she can get up to speed on that issue quickly, because the need is for good ME clinics, and as yet there is precious little science underpinning such an ideal.

Totally agree. The people I call "the innocently uninformed", of whom there are many, although in many cases perhaps more accurately "the innocently misinformed".

To be fair, their is a huge learning curve with ME and PACE etc, and I suspect she is doing as well as (maybe better than) most people at her point on the learning curve. Hopefully she will continue to learn these things.

I don't understand why the stats people are in the loop here at all. We want the data, not their (yet again!) half-baked analysis of it! The level of expertise needed to identify the relevant raw original-source data (not intermediate part-analysed data), is nothing like what is needed to...

Absolutely. They are floundering and lying very badly.

Is there anything that might be useful in QMUL's Data Retention Policy I wonder ... http://www.arcs.qmul.ac.uk/media/arcs/policyzone/Records-Retention-Policy-2010-v01.1.pdf

I think they are just trying to pull the wool, and making an embarrassingly abysmal job of it.

Rather think they are digging a nice deep hole for themselves.

Many thanks @Simon M. Of course all these deliberations of improvers, be they statistically significant or clinically important, are all subject to the overriding caveat that they are self-reported and incorporate significant favourable bias in them. If that could be corrected for (i.e...

Does make you wonder if the fraud case would be laid open, and they are cr*pping themselves at the thought.

Is this what they've done with the data? :rolleyes: http://theprintnews.co.uk/2016/10/queen-mary-and-the-cloak-of-invisibility/