Search results

As they say - BS baffles brains.

Nope. Maybe they are angling for another delay :rolleyes:

Now there is a heavily loaded comment. None of the authors are involved in the NICE review at all are they?

I think the great success of the BPS PR machine is that to most people there is no awareness they are witnessing PR of any kind, it's invisible - they just perceive sincere good scientists striving hard for patients against the odds, with all those nasty militant activists trying to stop them...

One thing you can be sure about, if this does start to gain traction, is the BPS crowd will start wittering on, as they always do when truth and reality looms, about "moving on" and to stop living in the past. They are right of course, except in what is meant by "moving on". To the BPS folk...

There is however a very high profile on this, unlike ME/CFS ever has been, so it's possible things could be different.

Speaking without any expertise on this at all. Depends how a mutation arises. Are mutations a function of the transference of the virus from one person to another? Or a function of the virus replicating within a person? Either way it would seem that the rate of increase of the virus within a...

Very interesting.

Thank goodness The Lancet is such a stalwart gate guardian for upholding the good science needed to underpin this ... Oh, hang on a minute ...

@dave30th FYI as background info, if you've not already seen this thread.

Very, very well done @Parsnip for bringing this out into the open. If that were provable in a court of law, then I'm sure it would be a criminal offence. I suspect this whole process is littered with them, let alone the obscene immorality of it all. It's a disgusting self-serving enterprise...

Yes, it does show a mega-omission from the scientific process, or so it seems to me - learning from past mistakes not being the responsibility of individual scientists, but some better way. Maybe some global register that has to be updated as part of the process, and referred to as part of the...

Because the "scientists" doing these studies are not the real deal. Proof their hypotheses are right, and the kudos that goes with that, is far more important to them than seeking scientific truths and thereby striving towards what is best for patients and science. It should be incredible that...

A quick web search shows total NHS expenditure around £160 billion, so the inference that £3 billion was 10% of total expenditure was massively misleading. God knows how many flawed financing decisions have been made on the back of that. What matters now is for that correction to be seen by all...

Absolutely. Muted but influential conversations in the corridors of power, I'm sure. Why am I sure? ... because it is part of the human condition. It is a significant part of how those who wield soft power achieve what they do. Much of it off the written record. Much of done to be plausibly...

This 2001 document notes ... https://sacfs.asn.au/download/talking_point/Talking Point - 2001 Issue 3.pdf Edit: Forgot to include link. Page 24.

And this ... http://www.margaretwilliams.me/2001/information-on-cbt-wessely-and-prisma_2001.pdf

This reckons Prisma Health ... https://quackbengoldacre.wordpress.com/professorsimonwessely/ But no indication of the authenticity of that information. Can't see a date for the article but will be no earlier than late 2004, given last paragraph.

Came across this doing a web search (no doubt already in S4MR somewhere, maybe even this thread): https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200304/ldhansrd/vo040122/text/40122-12.htm