Search results

These figures are interesting in that they may illustrate just how prevalent it may be for physicians like Andrew Goddard to 'see the efficacy of the treatments', and how wrong this impression actually is. It looks as if these figures were derived from previous trials but we know that the...

This bit I think is wrong and unhelpful. People had tried quite hard in the 1980s to measure everything they thought might be relevant and found nothing. Not knowing where to start, having screened for all the obvious things, had nothing to do with not having looked or a vicious cycle. I think...

Scanning on Google is interesting. Information packs seem to give no indication of the grounds for GET or risks. One says: You may be worried that any increase in exercise or physical activity could make your condition worse. Be reassured - research has shown that a guided, gradual exercise...

I am not sure what 'operating proactively' means but perhaps Valerie can clarify. At least when I practiced most medicines were given without any formal consent process. The patient should have been informed of the reasons for taking the treatment but they did to sign a form to say they had...

Yes. This just looks like another rehab marketing pitch.

I am not surprised. The great majority of people's understanding of things like NICE guidelines will come from tabloid press or social media or nothing much. Considering the inability of the press to grasp the basics it would be quite surprising if the general public did. I strongly suspect...

The therapies and measures to be used are essentially the same as used in these successful trials. The psychology of that statement is very interesting. Scientists don't normally talk like that.

The only thing on which I would disagree is that most good science is done by mavericks working in isolation: Einstein Newton Leibniz Descartes Galileo Darwin Pasteur Lister Jenner Curie Crick and Watson ...

I wonder what the inspired mid-field pass from @Healthy_Control was?

That is a fairly incisive reply from Godwin. Sharpe may come to regret that tweet.

I fear it is a lack of common sense, which, as Bertrand Russell said, is not that common. The issues with these trials are easy for anyone on this site without scientific knowledge to follow. You just have to have some basic experience of how human beings behave and a bit of joined up thinking.

Only in the trivial sense that if you have no virus you cannot have a mutation.

I think it is simply that Grover wants to centre the piece around the idea of 'lived experience'. So anyone who stresses believing the patients must be on the right side.

A vaccine can protect a population against infection - by reducing the likelihood of the virus being passed around.

What I think is clear from the print version is that the newspaper and its editor really couldn't care a damn what comes out as long as it fits onto the paper neatly. They are quite happy to have different accounts in different presentations. For all its hi-falutin' do-goodery mission...

As far as I can see they are getting involved as patients that happen to be doctors rather than as people with specific experience with trials. I am talking about doctors engaging with this purely as an issue of standards in clinical science.

The issue is clinical trial practice - which is something physicians (or other medical specialists) do. I am aware that scientists have contributed to the background knowledge base but is are scientists actually jumping up and down writing to the BMJ or taking to journalists or otherwise...

I agree but it must bit a bit puzzling that the voices of accepted best methodological practice (Royal Colleges) here are saying that CBT and GET are being unduly criticised. Where are the rows of academics defending good practice? There's me and Brian, and journalists, lawyers and...

Except that in this case I had spent the best part of an hour on the phone with Grover going through the arguments and counter-arguments. She specifically rang me to ask me to explain why the two sides differed so much.

Fluge and Mella produced pharmacodynamic profiles for each patient showing progress over time. Although we now know that the responses were spurious (placebo or expectation bias of whatever sort) you can see very clearly that some patients spiralled up to reporting feeling normal and others did...