Search results

For those who haven't encountered "Natural News" before (or don't remember): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_News

Yes of course. But I think it is one of the inconsistencies in their own thinking, even if their underlying concept and the results per se weren't flawed, and therefore additionally and particularly irresponsible.

There are so many flaws and inconsistencies in the PACE trial and now in the reply to the reanalysis that I wonder how many maybe most obvious flaws might still remain to expose. I am sure this inconsistency has been discussed already, but couldn't find out whether it has been addressed yet...

I am not sure what "nip round" means and I don't know in which ways her illness might affect her communication capabilities but it might be good to ask her which mode of communication she preferred?

Could some people who are on Twitter point out why it would be pretty ignorant for journalists working on ME to omit Jonathan Edwards' view on ME research? (Edit: And use polite wording if they do?)...

"Editor’s note: An earlier version of this story misstated where David Tuller published a 15,000-word review of the PACE study. It was published on the Virology Blog hosted by Columbia University professor Vincent Racaniello." Is this the only amendment? So they still describe David Tuller as...

I have wirtten some snippets on this topic but would prefer to discuss this on the members only advocacy forum. I won't be able to contribute much myself though and don't feel up to start a thread. What do others think [edit:] about discussing this on a members only thread? (Too knackered now...

David Tuller: Trial By Error: My Letter to Kate Kelland http://www.virology.ws/2019/03/18/trial-by-error-my-letter-to-kate-kelland/

@Lucibee has done a transcript: https://www.s4me.info/threads/michael-sharpe-on-radio-4-today-tom-feilden-bbc-18th-march-2019.8632/page-2#post-152182 link to the podcast/ see also...

From @Lucibee 's transcript: Michael Sharpe on BBC Radio4 Today – 18 March 2019 – 8.45am: "These journals – journals like Health Psychology – are at liberty to publish campaigns against the treatment – because that’s effectively what it was – but it’s very important that science takes its...

"Neither article interviews any of the > 100 scientists & clinicians who rejected the #PACEtrial." Edit: (Just checked: That's true for the Daily Mail, didn't check if it's true for the Times. The Daily Mail article however links to a video with Dr Shepherd which I think is quite good)...

Tom Fielden wasn't the presenter then?

Plus: Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre, February 2013 by Dr Claire Bithell, Head of Mental Health, Science Media Centre...

Yes, and it seems Sharpe is aiming for some own goals again. I have to catch up with this thread yet, but so many new posts on this and other threads are cheering me up after my passages through some Twitter ravines. I chose to be not on Twitter for diverse reasons, but I actually find it a...

But some birds do both tweeting and twittering, don't they?

I realize my suggestions were a bit too strict. And even though @Robert 1973's first approach seems ideal to me, this will in most cases prove impracticable whereas reporting fellow sufferers may seem too harsh. My impression is however that Quasar is being defended and excused by other pwME...

I agree with both. The problem on Twitter is that when abusive tweets are posted as endorsements of your own tweet they are displayed on your personal Twitter account. So I won't endorse any tweet from a person who does not distance herself from tweets being displayed on her account that...

I largely agree. It seems though there is now a least one worse, completely unacceptable tweet spreading. For me it's primarily not a question of tactics but of ethics to distance myself from abusive language or false allegations. I am not on twitter but if I were I would react accordingly.

3 times is quite usual I think even just for clearer wording, typos and formatting.

Reviewer's report: https://static-content.springer.com/openpeerreview/art:10.1186/s40359-019-0288-x/40359_2019_288_ReviewerReport_V0_R1.pdf https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-019-0288-x/open-peer-review