Thanks. I hadn’t actually noticed that, but I was wondering why it was suddenly getting so much attention.
That was the point I was making in my Tweet. Hopefully, the Minister’s tactic will backfire and draw more attention to the failures of the DHSC et al.
[Edited to add – it’s been a good...
I don’t disagree, but the problem is that this has been used as an excuse for not funding anything in the past. If the ring-fenced funds can be carried over and added to the next year’s funds, and the right people are making the decisions, standards do not necessarily need to be lowered...
I agree that just ring-fencing will not be enough. But I maintain that it is important, and may be a prerequisite. We certainly need the right sort of people at the MRC or NIHR making the decisions, which has not been the case to date.
The MRC website currently states...
As past strategies have failed, I am in favour of ring-fencing. If there are insufficient high-quality proposals then funds can be carried over and added to the next year’s funds. But I believe that high-quality proposals will follow if the funding is there. As I told my MP about 15 years ago...
That’s one of the possibilities I was alluding to – but I didn’t want to make myself look like a prat if it was a ridiculous suggestion. @Lucibee, who is much more knowledgeable than me, seemed to think it was more innocent that I was implying. Any thoughts @Jonathan Edwards @dave30th @Carolyn...
I thought it might be useful (and quite amusing) to put screenshots of some of Michael Sharpe’s “have you read the paper?” Tweets together in one place.
Carol Monaghan, MP and former head of science:
@Carolyn Wilshire, PhD, lead author of the 2018 PACE reanalysis:
@Mike Godwin, lawyer...
I’m sure this is true. Further to my previous comment, I would add that I would have been much more likely to volunteer in the earlier stages of my illness (year 1 or 2) than later on. It was clear early on that exertion made me worse but again and again I refused to accept/believe it. In...
Yes, that I have been laughing so much (despite feeling like sh*t) is another sure sign that we are winning.
Here’s where the Godwin/Sharpe/Weesly Tweets start in the S4ME discussion for anyone whose not been following...
Wessely seems very anxious to assure us that he was not an author, when, as Keith points out, nobody has suggested he was. I’m not sure if this is, as Keith suggests, a diversionary tactic or whether there may be more too it.
Wessely’s own tweets suggest that he probably should have been an...
If they are deleted on Twitter (by the Tweeter) they will disappear from here as they are only embedded. It would be wise to save screenshots of the ones you feel are most important.
[Edit: would anyone like to take responsibility for saving screenshots of important Twitter threads and...
One needs to distinguish between a clinical trial and treatment in clinical practice. I might be willing to subject myself to a treatment which I believe is ineffective and potentially harmful in a clinical trial if I felt it would help to advance the understanding of my condition. But I would...
I know this seems pedantic but precision of language is important, as the PACE/BPS crowd so often pick up on it as a way to divert from the valid criticisms of their research. As far as I’m aware – and as Sharpe has pointed out on Twitter – the PACE authors do not refer to “false beliefs”. They...
This was a post three days ago, before I prodded Godwin to reply to Sharpe’s tweet...
Wessely is too savvy to get into a public fight with an old friend who happens to think his beloved trial is a pile of crap. The probability that Sharpe would provoke a skirmish was always much higher. I’m...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.