Search results

Yes. There are examples at one end where interests are clearly in conflict, and at the other where it would be ludicrous to suggest an interest was in conflict. There is also a whole grey area in between, and I confess I'm never quite sure where the dividing line is.

This is akin to excluding women from voting on an equal pay for women vote!

Looks like this bus must have done the Lightning Process ...

Just to highlight the inconsistency here: Clearly a lack of joined up thinking - or maybe just thinking - here.

Do you mean no one attempted to replicate the results? Or it was attempted but failed to?

I expect others will know of this, but first time I've spotted it: LP DOES NOT WORK FOR ME https://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/MESNORFOLK/LP.html In contrast to Voices of Recovery.

The inbuilt bias is pretty strong isn't it. Voices of Recovery, not Voices of LP Participants. And the joining criteria is pretty selective ... But what else would you expect ...

That is good, because that should mean the whole thing is open to public scrutiny.

Do we know if there is a way to clarify these things in advance?

So is it still definitely the case that no further comments on the draft have, nor will be, accepted after the deadline that was set, as per: And that all NICE is doing now it considering all the evidence and comments that arrived up to that date and no later? Or is there some back door...

I'm confused. I thought the cut-off date for further stakeholder input to the guideline process, and commenting on the draft, had long passed. I though all that remained was for NICE to consider the feedback on the latest draft that had been received up to that deadline, and no other. I thought...

merged thread https://meassociation.org.uk/2021/05/mail-online-my-canine-carer-can-even-tell-when-im-about-to-faint/

I would think any public enquiry would be some time into the future. There would be a lot of groundwork to be laid, not so much with that as an aim, but more as secondary benefit of improving public understanding.

I think most people will guess that the psych collective will report their results most positively. When framed this way, it just seems to fit the mould. The less definitive the science, the less definitive the results need to be to claim success. It's as if it is a science attracting a...

Fascinating that this dynamic orderly collaboration, cohesion, between trillions of component parts, essentially characterises what we call "life". Components forming subsystems within subsystems, nested to goodness knows what depth. And it all breaks down once the organism dies, its atoms...

I think that is exactly it. There seems to be no real direction to this article, unless you consider it an attempt to misdirect. To make biomedically-oriented doctors look like the bad guys, and for the "enlightened" ones to swivel to a BPS approach.

Yep. A bit like double-glazing. We sell it. We want you to buy it. What do you mean it's not right for you! You clearly do not know what is right for you - our windows are right for everyone.

What more need be said :D:D:D. Good ol' Phil, always good for a laugh.

They are striving to get the comments about LP removed from draft guideline when it becomes formalised. That's my bet.

Good job there's no shortage of good scientific evidence for that then.