Search results

I knew Aaronovitch had talked about his being helped by therapy. I hadn't heard about Liddle. Would you have a link to something that mentions it, please?

I tried interesting Channel 4 News, both with Jackie Long and Cathy Newman, but no luck. Cathy passed it on to the science correspondent and he said nothing to see here, move along.

Porter always says the same thing. He usually mentions something about having a timeout every hour or something. I forget the detail.

I have continued working on this and had a long (friendly) exchange with the FOI department at North Bristol NHS Trust. The researchers have clearly tried to get the paper published but haven't been able to, despite some interest a year ago. The latest I have came today: I don't know whether...

(Accepted. Well, by this one at least. Hehe.) I think you're right it's probably been screened by lawyers. Hard to imagine how half his stuff gets published given that rule.

Moderator note: A reminder to all members that forum rules do not allow the pasting of whole articles (or blog posts) as this would be a breach of copyright.

It's a fair point and perhaps I could have said a little more on that. I have now added something to the post:

Excellent. Thanks.

Thanks, Andy.

OK, thanks, could you please then show me on that page where to enter the dates.

Could you please link to the search you conducted.

Anyone able to replicate this finding? I have been to the site and done a search. I get over 100 studies returned (many from China), but I don't see how to limit the search terms to trials started in any one year. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/home

Excellent comment, Trish, thanks.

That's a very revealing tweet by Sharpe. It describes what he considers to be 'harassment', but it's not 'death threats', it's attempts to damage his reputation and have his papers retracted. That I think is interesting in itself. But it's also exactly what happens to bad science: it's retracted...

It's legitimate. I have seen similar tweets from that account.

You would understand reviewer code better than I would, but I read that differently. I read it as an endorsement of the discussion, that he is saying the debate about the trial is providing a necessary and interesting review of the PACE papers and there's really no need for him to say anything more.

On this we have very good support including from the Campaign for FOI. https://www.cfoi.org.uk/ I have had contact with Maurice Frankel there (who helped Alem, I understand).

Sure. I am a little disappointed by a couple of things in the decision. The first is that it says I have CFS, when the only time I mentioned that I was ill (in making the appeal I said I may need consideration at some point during the process because 'I have ME') and his characterization of the...

Very interesting post. Thanks for your hard work on it @Trish and for your clear analysis.

It should be enough: Please provide the following patient-level data at baseline, 3 months, 6 months and 1 year assessments, where available 1. SF-36 physical functioning scores. 2. School attendance in the previous week, collected as a percentage (10, 20, 40, 60, 80 and 100%). 3. Chalder...