Search results

I keep reading about how important FB is for spreading news stories, but I spend very little time on there. Maybe we should think a bit about how to use FB more effectively for campaigning, or spreading awareness of S4ME? If Putin can do it, so can we!

LOL - maybe Wessely sent it to her? "ICYMI..."

Okay... I should avoid commenting on my half-memories of a paper. This paper has still been cited in annoying ways in presentations though! (I should really go back and check I've got that right actually).

Okay, it's no longer live (have they got spies here?!) but if you go back to the start, there's quite a long recording of someone laying out the table. It's nearly as good as the biscuit talk.

It's still live! We can hear them discussing their biscuits... gossip, gossip, gossip.

I used to be really pleased about how bad the SMC was (what a great story it will make)... but they keep not falling! It has been so many long, long years.

Actually, I just searched again and got different posts turn up. I don't think I understand facebook well enough to say what sort of response there is.

I was too slow. Looks like it will be available to rewatch soon:

I just searched for this piece on facebook to see what sort of response it was getting (not much so far) and saw Duffy saying "I've never had so much trouble getting my Huffington Post published." Seems we've got a lot against us.

I'd forgotten that they made that point. Since its release, there's been an attempt to present this paper as evidence that patients with CFS do support the use of the umbrella term 'Persistent Physical Symptoms'. I remember thinking when I read it that this study seemed designed to try to claim...

Thanks John. Really the article itself already made it clear that the 'balls' threat came from a purported call to Wessely. It's possible that the artist who created this used that purported quote, and then co-incidentally Crawley get sent an e-mail using the same quote... but that's getting a...

Thanks. Great to see more attention being brought to this stuff. There's a lot of stuff packed in that Huffington piece. PACE, the Science Media Centre, insurance COIs, the DWP... in a five minute read. Some of it was a little loose, and could be seen as being unfair on PACE,but it can be hard...

What has been provided doesn't really clarify much the way the feasibility study became the full study, it was supposedly assessing the feasibility of, along with a change in primary outcome. Doesn't it look like the only funding they got was for the feasibility study?

I understand wanting access to primary sources. John seems like the sensible person to ask. We all have slightly different standards for evidence, and what claims can be cited. I'd assume John would be fine with people asking around too.

I've just seen that @JohnTheJack has posted here, so might be able to reassure you on what he was told. Thanks to John for looking into this.

I don't see how to watch the video on the TEDx site. It seems like the presentation after Crawley's is available, but I can't see hers. Any tips?

tbh, I'm wary of signing anything which could lead to more funding for Crawley. This is such a ridiculous situation... I should be able to sign that petition, but I just don't trust the UK medical research Establishment at all.

Was there anything related to PACE/White type stuff in there? I've already got a back-log of things to listen to.

If they're going to assess the safety of a treatment, having information on compliance would be a useful part of that. If a 'GET' programme doesn't lead to patients increasing their activity levels then this programme being found to be safe should not lead to patients being reassured that it is...

I ended up looking at the twitter feed of Rickards, and he seems like exactly the sort of Wessely fan you'd expect: https://twitter.com/hughrickards/with_replies I wonder what result he'll want from his study? http://www.hra.nhs.uk/news/research...ss-in-patients-with-chronic-fatigue-syndrome/