Search results

@V.R.T. your response has been published: https://www.bmj.com/content/389/bmj.r977/rr-18 Good work

I suspect their actual reach is pretty small, but they do serve as an important record of wide dissent and opposition to the opinion piece at the time it was published. This is why it's great to see such a wide variety of responses. That's especially useful for when the next BPS paper gets...

Just to be fair to The BMJ*, they do screen at least some of the responses. Our (MEAction UK) response had a bit of back and forward with requested edits and removal of sections from the BMJ over areas they thought were likely to: 1. Cause distress (there was originally a bit more in there...

Hi and thanks @Sly Saint for tagging. Just to give a bit more detail - this initiative is not being led by MEAction UK - it's a project from Caroline Kingdon, Adam Lowe ( @adambeyoncelowe ) and Leonard Jason. Initially they developed the consensus statement and gathered a list of researchers...

I'm afraid I don't know @MEMarge . Since MEAction UK stopped being a member of Forward-ME I don't get to see minutes or hear meeting reports any longer. @PeterW might be able to give some confirmation if Forward-ME is involved or not?

@MEMarge - apologies for the delay in getting these to you, we've been rather busy the last couple of weeks with all the various things going on, so thanks @PeterW for the nudge! Attached are Denise’s notes made during the BACME conference and these were presented to Forward-ME for discussion...

Hi @MEMarge , just to let you know I've emailed Simon Chandler (Chair of Forward-ME) to make sure he's aware of your request and to say #MEAction UK is happy for Denise's report to be shared publicly. There might also be a report to Forward-ME from Russell Fleming (MEAssociation), the other...

Thank you for pointing that out! I misread the title. Still sneaky of them but a different issue from what I thought.

-edit- ignore my post, it's pre coffee. - end edit- Wait a second... It's also saying there are no rapid responses now . Sigh, time to write another letter - they sure do like erasing our voice.

I'm sure there is a discussion I've not seen on s4me on what is considered a better number to use? Anything we claim, we need to be able to back up in some way and these are the best figures we've got with the poor data available. Are they wrong? Almost certainly not 100% accurate, but they...

Hi @Andy , Author of that piece here. We expect most candidates who knock on doors to have little to no knowledge of ME, so providing a figure demonstrates the scale of the problem and conveys the severity of the issue. Without this context, it’s easy for a politician to nod along and dismiss it...

If anyone knows which platform this is on, that'd be really helpful...

It's been corrected now - Added at the bottom of the article: "This article was amended on 12 March 2024 to replace an incorrect hyperlink"

Does anyone really think the authors of the original paper paid £4k to make it open access? Totally unrelated, but was it one or was it two of the authors that are on the editorial board of the journal?

I'm wondering if a text only disclaimer isn't discriminatory against the blind.

I have it on good authority that NICE's rebuttal paper has now been accepted for publication - no ETA on when it will be published though.

#MEAction UK's letter to the BBC. https://www.meaction.net/2024/01/22/meaction-uks-letter-to-the-bbc-over-the-show-dragons-den/

NICE have now shared with us that they submitted their own rebuttal paper direct to the JNNP and are awaiting a response. Edit: They are happy for this to be public knowledge.

@Andy beat me to it ;)

https://www.meaction.net/2023/09/19/jnnp-to-publish-edited-rapid-response-by-meaction-uk/ The JNNP have now agreed to reinstate, an edited version of MEAction UK's rapid response. We agreed to their suggested changes, and removal of the notice as we think it's important to remain on record...