Search results

when you're a young academic, I assume these theories can come across as appealing and intuitive and can seem to explain lots of confusing things.

What are they looking for exactly? do they say?

Of course he did!!

I'm not sure what the best approach is here.

Reference 24 in the bit quoted about the physiological explanation for LP is a citation of Phil Parker's paper in the Romanian Journal of Experiential Psychotherapy. Just saying.

This was astonishing to me as well. It just accepts the entire premise as if it's valid. And they hang everything on the "evidence" from Crawley's bogus study. I don't understand why Fred Friedberg, who is the editor of Fatigue, would let this go through.

I don't understand the difference in meaning between the two versions.

And it is published in Fatigue. that means they likely tried to publish it elsewhere first and got rejected. But it is very weird. As @Hutan says they just have decided to make the linkage themselves between CBT and LP. The idea that they are writing papers with Phil Parker just seems really out...

My goal is to look at the research and related activities, and push the journals/academics/agencies where I can for accuracy and proper methodology. In terms of "PR," Adam's right that that's not my primary goal or function, but I certainly hope others can use what I post or publish to good...

Yes, close--he said that in relation to CODES, the study of CBT for psychogenic non-epileptic seizures (PNES) because he knows it works from his clinical practice.

Ah, right.

What's this?

Nice! Another journal should be publishing a similar correction soon, also with Professor David as senior author.

I haven't read the paper. Are the researchers seeking to expose this sort of priming as a concern?

Maybe that Crawley study was criticized because it violated multiple rules of scientific research?

this was a huge problem in the CBT study she published last fall with Sir Simon.

No, the Highlights "correction" was in the GETSET paper. I included a separate item about the GET safety paper. That hasn't been corrected. I've revised the blog headline to make clear there are two separate items there.

yes, the CODES trial. I wrote a few posts about it: https://www.virology.ws/2020/06/11/trial-by-error-a-kings-college-london-press-release-hides-the-bad-news/

was this because of her public tweets about this issue?

Actually, the decision by the ethics committee in Norway against the proposed LP study there basically referenced this sort of bias as a reason for rejecting the study. This describes the bias in a nutshell. "NEM believes that the method poses a risk that the intervention may affect the...