Search results

There is a strange congruence to this. 1993 was the year of the damaging CIBA conference and also the year when plans must have been put in place to employ LoCascio as an advisor, and lo and behold, here he is, cent,re stage in the photo of the Novartis conference, designed to further the...

Interesting that this conference was courtesy of the Novartis Foundation. That ten must be considered to be broadly the same organisation as the CIBA Foundation, and we know what we have to thank them for.

I forget, but have we found recorded instances of them using that term?

That photo does reveal something else of interest. Sharpe and White do at least have the decency to put themselves on the back row, well away from the centre.. Wessely is placed in prime position between Aylward and LoCascio. Strange that. Complete strangers, of course.

Malingering was never far beneath the surface. PK Thomas with whom Wessely co-authored a chapter in a book referred to simulated symptoms in a letter in 1987. That was apparently a reference to the result of electromyograms which McEvedy and Beard said could be simulated. I think there has...

Yes, thanks Brian. It's always a relief to be reminded that there are sane voices out there. I should have remarked on that in my earlier post, but that photo does divert the attention.

Every time I see that photo I admire the skill of the person who photoshopped that flashing mac on to SW. There could be no other explanation, but the skill is extraordinary.

Surely that must be a spoof. Could anybody be so lacking in awareness?

@dave30th Have you seen the whole original tweets about which Reuters were complaining? this does not appear to be serious journalism. And thanks to @fivetowns for discovering that.

Wasn't the back pain issue how this all started with Waddell claiming that it was best cured by exercise, and selling the idea to Aylward?

Someone , somewhere pointed out that there had been amendments to the original article with partial corrections. There seems to be another interesting amendment. I have earlier said that the tweets complained of should be seen in their entirety and in context. A screenshot of the @Paul Watton...

There was a revealing article in today's copy of Private Eye for all you football lovers. It's alright. Don't give up yet. You're quite safe. It concerned bribery allegations involving the 2022 World Cup finals and FIFA. "....It detailed the work of PR lobbyists for the UAE, Qatar's sworn...

Didn't he mean to say "please do read the SMC briefing paper"? EDIT "And if you did not receive it, what makes you think you have any right to comment in a British newspaper."

Just looking at the objects of the company stated in the Trustees report linked to above, one might think that "furthering education in all aspects of the illness" would enable them to make some response to false or unbalanced information propagated by popular news media about the condition...

Someone who reasonably assessed the risks of potentially damaging communications being directed at the journalist. On balance it was reasonable to comply. It is astonishing if the patients organisations were not aware.

@Skycloud There was nothing wrong with your post. I made general comments which were not intended to suggest that you were criticising Ryan. It is unfortunate if a contrary intention was inferred.

I think that you are being unduly benevolent in giving them the benefit of this doubt. I knew, or had a reasonable suspicion which turned out to be correct. Other members clearly knew. If the charities did not then their intelligence gathering operations are not up to much. EDIT I was...

I think we can probably mostly agree that this was not quite the article we would have hoped for. But within this narrative we should not turn upon Ryan. She no doubt did what she could within the constraints of her health and editorial control. The question for the Guardian is why they have not...

If that were the case one might expect them to inform their members (of which I am not one) what they are doing. Who was the politician of whom it was said that he was going around the country stirring up apathy? EDIT it was Willie Whitelaw's description of Harold Wilson in 1974.

The chosen strategy seems to be ineffectuality. They seem not to have grasped the idea of judgment in default of defence. If popular, political and scientific opinion were not affected only by science the SMC would not exist.