Search results

It seems strange that they say During the guideline process three professional members of the guideline committee stepped down. It is both true and false. The Guideline was yet to be signed off by the Executive Committee, but the work of the Guideline Committee was concluded, and so far as we...

Hans Knoop, perhaps

Presumably they mean "How could this have been allowed to happen?" Some did try their best.

I was struck by the similarities of some of the ideas to those of Arthur Cott of McMaster from circa 1985. We know that he worked with major insurance companies in drawing treatment guidelines on behalf of the Canadian Insurance Bureau in circa 2000.

I see no definition of "functional". Surprising from a partner in a law form.

we had better not suggest that or we might notice a certain dampness in the air. Rain, probably.

They seem to be playing with the ambiguity of the word "society". If they are so united, why do they have at least 14 societies. This probably would not withstand analytic scrutiny.

I am sure this all goes down well with McKinsey. There is a whole world out there of which we know little - but some of the budget goew there McKinsey & Company hired to review NHS technology services (consultancy.uk)

it looks as though they are heading off into a quagmire. Do they realise that?

Are they? All of them? By whom? What is their evidence to support this claim?

I think that is one question. Another might be "what could it mean?", and how is it being used in any particular case. It is rather like "measure". It carries the connotations of one use over into another.

They won't even bother to test it.

Wasn't that Groucho Marks?

I have only looked through the references. I find it alittle strange that they purport to provide a history of "the" BPS model. Somehow they omit any reference to McHugh and Vallis, Cott, Eisenberg and Kleinmanet al. Without that it is hardly possible to understand the changes which have...

The only interesting question which arises from this paper is: "Do they run any critical thinking classes at Schmid College of Science and Technology, or, come to that at Stanford?" EDIT perhaps I should expand on that. How can they say that etiology is multifactorial when they don't know the...

Does the writer not have any avenue of complaint for this bowdlerisation of her work? Once it has survived initial editing and published it is late in the day to alter the impact.

It has been up to four before. I think the fourth used to be prognostic, but I never understood it.

I'm trying to wrap my head around the idea of a "clinical feature" mimicking anything - let alone "other medical conditions".

What will they do with the results? It increases possibilities for social prescribing. Prescribe everyone a partner, or perhaps provide a prescription for a divorce?

I was thinking in terms of NICE and its proposed collaboration with Cochrane. I suspect that the Masons are old-hat. It now looks as though the entire system is handed on a plate to McKinsey. Who was it said that "business ethics" is an oxymoron.