Search results

I really don't like people making money from the sick and desperate by going beyond the evidence. There are always worse ways to make money though! I'd be deeply suspicious of the claims in her book, and only believe those things that you can independently verify. It came out after Mikovits...

Could have been masters/PhD?

Yeah... you're definitely right about them having approval for the amendment to change to a full trial, I'm just not sure if the way they did this meant that they got reduced oversight, or how involved the full committee was. There is this letter (13th Sept)...

From the blog: That Jason paper is saying such obvious things, and so clearly in response to PACE, that it's pretty funny. It's almost a form of trolling... but then, academia seems so rubbish that people do need a peer reviewed paper to refer to in order to recognise the PACE recovery...

This was just for the feasibility study, which was only to assess the feasibility of doing a trial of LP... it morphed into a full study in ways that don't seem entirely clear.

The blood working group did work with her, and she was a co-author of the negative paper: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/09/21/science.1213841 There were a few papers from that study, and I've forgotten which ones show what. This is one...

I only saw the amendment approval from the two person panel. Did I miss one going to the full committee? Can you remember which that was? These ones all seemed to mention just two people (one of whom seems to be a GP specialising in homeopathy): Ethics - Amendment 2.0 (PDF, 42kB) Ethics -...

Thanks. It looks like I'm going to be away from my PC soon, so that may have to do. Best wishes to all engaging tonight.

Thanks John. I'm planning to have a Crawley marathon soon... inaugural, that Sci Data talk, then this. I wonder which time she'll tell the hilarious 'balls' joke/lie best?

I thought about giving you credit... but decided to let Sean take all the glory instead.

I'm so stupid that I saw that, liked it, and then forgot about it did my own list.

I went for the exclamation mark. We deserve it.

If anyone is planning to write to TedX I'd be happy to exchange PMs with others and fact check whatever is sent. Maybe it would be worth getting a transcript of potentially problematic bits to be checked by others? We don't want to play into Crawley's narrative by making false claims in any...

Considering the way 'depression' as a diagnosis is often given, it wouldn't surprise me if most of those with chronic health problems who were scored as having depression had very different problems to healthy people who were scored as having depression.

Nater has been one of the most ridiculous CFS quacks imo. He's claimed doubled blind trials show CBT is effective (the site is currently down, but I think this link should take you to that claim when it's back on-line: https://listserv.nodak.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind1205d&L=co-cure&F&S&P=12748)...

This Chalder presentation on PACE is currently on-line here: http://www.fom.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/Hidden-Disabilities-Trudie-Chalder.pdf Slide 23 has results for: % “normal” levels Of course, patients could actually decline from baseline yet still be classed as having 'normal' levels of...

I was just re-reading the PACE PI's March 2017 piece 'Myth-busting a myth busting'. Wow is it annoying. It already has responses from Tuller, Wilshire, Vink, etc. https://www.observantonline.nl/Home/Artikelen/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/12101/Myth-busting-a-myth-busting This is how they...

You may have heard of it? At the other place, some of us wrote a word or two about it. I thought it might be good to have a thread for PACE chats, or for new people to ask questions, that didn't necessarily relate to important new papers, or anything that warranted a new thread. I could post...

So much of this was relevant to us that it felt silly to pick bits out, but to try to give a flavour of it I've tried to select the 20% most likely to be of interest. "They can be susceptible to bias, for example, when reviews are conducted by people who have a stake in the conclusions...

Open Access: https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-017-0548-x Abstract There is an increasing body of research documenting flaws in many published systematic reviews’ methodological and reporting conduct. When good systematic review practice is questioned...