Search results

He probably is. He loves to pretend he's "over" this research because of the "abuse" but his career is built on this and his contempt and denial of its consequences are public record (as well as private records, as emails can be subpoenaed and FOIed years later). They all know they only have...

There wouldn't be any such trials because the premise that there is harm is questioned by those tasked with recording it or reviewing the evidence. That's the essence of their framing it strictly as chronic fatigue. They only ever acknowledge fatigue, which a severe crash into being bed bound...

In his early writings Wessely stressed the importance of this very point, that legitimizing ME would send hundreds of thousands of undeserving patients onto medical services and disability benefits. A point that is further driven by the attempt to create the fiction of MUS that would bring in...

Agreed. Anyone with slight competence in how the Web works understands that this effectively buries the update. Every link to the original document will remain and anyone visiting it will have no idea about the issue unless they deliberate seek it out, which they wouldn't since they don't know...

The psychiatrist has no clothes?

"Welcome to Whose Line is it Anyway?psychosocial research, the showfake science where everything's made up and the pointsfacts don't matter."

"Is being seen as a victory for activists" was a particularly damning spin since they were preempting the decision and as such did not have any actual comments from anyone. It was not particularly true either considering it could still go either way (as it did) and it only represented...

It's likely a calculation for when this blows out. It will be massively embarrassing when they have to defend having triple-checked this and seriously failed to see anything wrong with it and how they could seriously keep it in the common mental disorders group when it has nothing to do with it...

Really?? I remember it was kind of a big deal about the ice bucket challenge precisely because so much of the funding for research was raised privately. How can fundraising for medical research ever been a bad thing?! It's not at all a choice. We wouldn't be doing that if the funding was...

Is there a discussion thread for what the focus of our arguments should be on the committee? Our patient representatives don't have to follow them but I'm sure we can augment their work on the committee and provide priorities or a working guide. I don't know exactly what that entails. For sure...

Sorry, they dropped Oxford. I added the other criteria to the sentence without adjusting. I don't know how they consider London and Fukuda but deprecating Oxford specifically dropped the poorest studies.

The charities seem missing on this issue. Unless they are doing what counts behind the scenes but then what kind of hostile climate would force them to do that this quietly? It still seems to be down to patients to do most of the work here. I don't get it. This is the most important issue...

The latest installment of this is Sharpe saying that they did it that way because they did it that way. With more typos, anyway. These are not the droids you are looking for. Compelling scientific argument. Real intellectual giants fighting against barbarian hordes of fiercely militant...

It relied on published evidence built on outdated criteria. That's a severe twisting of evidence-based. Nevermind patient and doctor evidence. Studies performed with Oxford, Fukuda and London criteria are heterogeneous and misleading and should not serve as evidence of anything. Oxford, Fukuda...

Can't remember who, I think it was an academic actually, but the reply to that tweet from Sharpe was precisely that they didn't follow the protocol anyway so how does pre-registration count here. No response, of course. And now of course it's public record he will have a hard time to explain...

That seems like the kind of thing that should be highlighted. Maybe in the NICE committee. Or to Monaghan? How embarrassing that a research funding institute is doing so badly that a foreign institute is funding work in their country. Though serious kudos need to be given to the NIH...

Awesome! Yes it does. Thanks. I can't do much analysis but it will be useful in the future. Did anyone do the same for the CDC?

There have been many discussions on NIH funding, and in particular the new funds dedicated to the new collaborative centers, as well as the see-saw of funding increases and decreases. Especially since this is basically the only actual significant source of funding we know of that is supposed to...

Sorry to be off-topic but I keep seeing ETA and I only know it as meaning estimated time of arrival and that can't be right the way it's used and it's annoying me. What does it mean? :)

Can't remember where I saw it (likely here) but there was mention that someone asked the NHS (official, using the whatdotheyknow website I think) how they handle reporting of harm and the reply was it's up to the local clinics, then asked local clinics and they said they don't do any follow-up...