Search results

Dr Jarvis may have realised that should he find himself in court that statement would not help his Medical Defence organisation (legal backup) support his case for not being struck off by the GMC.

Proof of concept is when you have actually proven the concept - i.e. got a definitive result!

Maybe I should be clear that by that group I mean Newcastle, not the various authors of the paper cited.

Interaction in relation to their rituximab for fatigue study, which I think was in primary biliary cirrhosis. There seemed to be an assumption that all fatigue was the same. Newton was explicitly saying that at the time. I am unclear what Ng has to do with Chen and other people - sorry I am not...

I am afraid that any abstract that contains an instruction to the reader as to the value of the work described is a clear signal to stop bothering to read anything further. Conclusions should be factual. Whether the work is useful is up to the reader. And there are no data - so presumably there...

None of it is of the slightest relevance because there are no trials that give reliable evidence for a cost effective treatment regardless of whatever diagnostic criteria are used!

Yes, of course the quote as a whole is totally non sequitur. The last sentence is fine. But it in no way justifies the first, which is a bogus justification of criminal negligence.

I am afraid I was not very inspired by the research approach of that group. The emphasis seems to be just on measuring the amount of fatigue. I think we need to measure the character of the problem in different conditions - the time profiles etc.

He has a fair point. There are a lot of very dubious names for medical conditions that continue simply out of convenience. But myalgic encephalomyelitis is to an extent in a league of its own for being dubious. It implies that there is brain inflammation when we can be pretty sure there isn't in...

Double-Dutch to me.

s It seems that the Guardian adheres to a glorious conception of supporting the underdog, even when the underdogs are professors of psychiatry working for insurance companies or people running crowdfunding scams for 'self-experiments'. Frances Ryan tries to steer them towards the real...

Ah, OK. But I imagine the US has laws about ethical board approval too. The more I look at it , the more it looks like a way to get suckers to part with shedloads of money. Maybe the Guardian should look at its ethical rules.

Replying to Glasziou: It isn't actually hard to reply when people make claims based on no evidence - as they did in this paper. You just stick to facts.

Is this a UK or US based project? The application form gives costs in USD.

If health care providers are 'supervising' they legally require ethics committee approval. Until there is a clear indication why not I think we can assume that this project is illegal. Or at least any health care provider supervising is likely to be disciplined or struck off. It needs formal...

Do I detect a touch of irony? It is certainly due. I also seem to detect a trace of brown-nosing in those tweets?

I fear not. These days decision makers in Royal Colleges are almost entirely airheads. They will not realise how silly they look because they do not actually get the arguments. As has been pointed out a room full of intelligent people is not the same as a roomful of eminent people. Intelligent...

Apart from the fact that the evidence for CBT and GET simply wasn't good enough to reach rock bottom to start with the thing that really put the lid on all these 'anomalies' for me was the response from healthcare professionals both on the NICE committee and at Round Table that: 'Nobody uses...

Yes but it is also significantly different in mice. They have a different range of immunoglobulin classes. Human natural antibodies are actually pretty well characterised in certain respects. That includes a specific VH4 gene called VH4.34 that mice would not have. I am afraid that the whole...

A very interesting finding. It is sufficiently close to known immune regulators (such as FOXP3) to seem maybe relevant but also suitably obscure - maybe responsible for some control mechanism we don't yet know. much about.