Search results

I don't think that is the important question. She may have been harassed by some individuals or may not without evidence and prosecutions we will never know. But there are two things that the harassment stories seem intended to lead to 1) A protection of the research/ethics from people...

I may be able to set something up here so that unregistered users could vote but I'm not sure if that would deal with guests coming back.

I think this was the first trial they had done. But they do seem somewhat basic and I would have thought should have been picked up with an internal review. I think sloppy stuff should raise issues with the ethics committee and mean they look more carefully but in this case they didn't seem to...

Does she have this role? She has a role in running the Bath clinic but I don't think she was on the local authority lists as a community paediatrician. Perhaps she did a long time ago?

Personal information is normally collected for a purpose and consent is asked for it to be used for a given purpose. Also consent would need to be given to share information outside of the organization. The question is what terms for data sharing did parents agree to when the children were...

But could we take advantage of it and use the term by turning it around and using it as an admission of medical ignorance.

When people talk about the "quiet majority" they usually mean that they believe other people agree with them and are just not speaking out. But normally with no evidence of that beyond the strength of their own beliefs. It always seems like an unreasonable argument to me.

I wonder if concerns that a future review process may be more rigorous and bring up the issues again means that Crawley went through the backdoor to approve the full trial via a protocol change on the existing ethical permission.

Another Tuller article on the subject. This time the COPE forum has responded suggesting more clarification is needed. They have clearly taken the misdirection from the BMJ in terms of believing it is a data set from an existing service but have said that needs to be confirmed...

I would see it differently as a professor at Bristol university she is a senior member of staff and is making statements that are highly related to her professional activity at Bristol. Thus to me she is speaking as a senior employee of Bristol university and hence giving the institutions view...

Oh dear I think they should stay away from stats. From what I remember with the PACE mediation model they failed to model important temporal aspects. Also I seem to remember that the scales they use broke the basic assumptions of the methods. But mediation models as whole seem to be a bad idea...

Although it may not benefit anyone if someone returns to work whilst still infectious and more people are ill. They may be at their desks but probably not functional. But then if managers are measured on sick days rather than productivity that is all they care about.

When the anti-transparancy stuff came out it seemed to me more about supporting academic careers than good science. There were arguments about those who collect data having 'rights' over the data to be the first to publish however slow. To me that seems unethical - permissions (and funding) were...

I think that in itself makes it not a service evaluation from: http://www.hra-decisiontools.org.uk/research/docs/DefiningResearchTable_Oct2017-1.pdf I wonder if another important question is are they still offering this as a service.

This attitude really really annoys me. What does it mean to have "elements of both physiological and psychological dysfunction". Without proposing any form of mechanism it strikes me as a meaningless statement designed to gloss over issues and avoid having to have any form of coherent thought...

That thread would make me worry about his mental health sounds very like the type of incoherent letters written by someone I know with severe issues.

It does look pretty dodgy though when questions of Bristol University having ethical permission to carry out a trial rather than investigating they put pressure on the institution that the journalist who raised the questions comes from to shut him up. It fails the headline test which is a good...

Yes from what I remember that is clear in the paper but she would probably be claiming that that was in her role running the service rather than her roll as a researcher. It all gets very tenuous of course.

I think their claim would be that the data is collected by the service and then handed over to researchers in an anonymised form. What this fails to mention is that the researchers are testing an extension to an existing service rather than evaluating a current one. They are trying to suggest...

At the end of the article he refers to a COPE document https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/COPE%20Forum%20Agenda%20and%20materials%2013_11_17_FINAL_2.pdf which I though summarised the issue of having no ethical permission for trialling service innovations in a very poor way that is...