Search results

Right, but of course this didn't work in the case of the Health Research Authority report on the PACE trial because their purview appears to be limited. They couldn't fault PACE because they decided all the T's were crossed and i's dotted as per the standard process (even though this wasn't...

Oh right--I forgot about the musical. Never saw it. The movie is one of weirdest, greatest movies ever.

I'm not sure this ancient movie reference means anything to anyone except aging gay men like me!

yes, I've checked in with Brian about writing a letter. it does seem warranted to respond. I'm trying to write a blog to amplify the points made in my previous blog about the abstract. So many more stupid points. And as has been suggested by @Esther12, @snowleopard and others, they raise...

I forgot that just last month I wrote a blog post about the abstract, which King's College London posted on its site. The article has introduced even more ridiculousness: https://www.virology.ws/2021/10/23/trial-by-error-the-pace-authors-now-blame-misunderstandings-for-get-cbt-criticisms/

Yes, especially if it was peer-reviewed by Professor Sir Simon Wessely and Professor Rona Moss-Morris!

well, ethics boards and trial oversight committees are theoretically supposed to be providing some oversight. but as we know, these processes can be easily subverted.

This page is still up, actually.

that page is gone. did anyone archive it?

Well, if they really had all the power, NICE would have caved to their demands. Perhaps they over-estimated how much power they have.

Did they state that GET was not a good name and that the clinical services actually don't do GET? Did they provide any evidence that their whatever pace-based rehab approach works beyond that they've seen it in clinical practice? I mean, how are they claiming their interventions are...

And with Phil Parker also. Diverse group!

Yes, as with everything, shocking but not surprising.

This is not really a big barrier. It shouldn't be hard for top executives at a major health agency to understand the background knowledge. You don't need to be a patient or have a medical/biological background to grasp the issues.

wow, I haven't looked through them all yet, but that's good to know!

In recent years, the SMC has also made sure to include a "dissenter" among the people it will release statements from, perhaps because it has realized to present just cronies and enablers of researchers to say nice things is no longer credible. Kate Kelland is no longer serving as a publicist...

Any guideline would be open to abuse by people willing to abuse it and misinterpret it or apply it in bad faith. I haven't seen anything in the versions of this guideline that would specifically make these things more likely. is there something specific you're thinking of that's in the guideline...

The CDC made no effort to mention any change when they did it. It was in the stealth of night. Then someone noticed it and mentioned it on a forum, and then I asked about it. This is obviously a very different and public situation. I assume it will get significant press coverage. Unfortunately I...

Also, if the evidence of benefits is of low or very low quality, presumably the evidence about possible harms is similarly hard to take seriously. So that would seem to balance out any idea of a weak recommendation.

Exactly. I assume that in their experience as eminent professors, they have generally been able to control the terms of the debate without much question. They're still shell-shocked to find out that things have changed a bit.