Search results

I have tried repeatedly to get a copy of the letters. Bristol says they don't have them and the clinic in Bath should have them. The clinic in Bath referred me back to Bristol. No one will acknowledge having them. Since there was no ethical review and no apparent consent, there's no real way to...

Interesting. Has Mr Stevens informed Cochrane of this? Why rely on Cochrane about ME but not about homeopathy? Hm. Seems a bit inconsistent to me.

Yes, this would also suggest that these meetings cannot be defined as standard clinical services.

It is rather confusing. As I documented at length, this "pilot program" really should not be defined as service evaluation. The point seems to be that they believe it was done in the course of the provision of normal school clinical services, but since it's a pilot program it wouldn't seem to...

I was asked to publish it whole. Since I've done that, the request does not bind anyone else, as far as I'm concerned and I'm sure as far as they're concerned. I mean, no one else has agreed to that condition so the HRA certainly couldn't have any expectation that it applies to anything but the...

This is certainly true, given that the PACE authors acknowledged a significant mistake in the Lancet correspondence about how they characterized the population of a database they used to developed their bogus "normal range." The point has never been corrected in The Lancet, and Dr Horton has...

Can you point me to a specific place where that is clear?

I have pointed out to the HRA that I consider the vice chancellor to have already compromised his independence in this regard and should have no place in adjudicating this matter. That argument has not apparently persuaded anyone involved.

I filed FOIs for the letter. Bristol said they didn't have it and it was based at the clinic. The clinic told me they didn't have it and it must be at Bristol. Esther obviously has a copy, but that does not appear to fall into the category of Bristol having a copy. Esther claimed she sought...

exactly. It is the same approach taken by Archives of Disease in Childhood with the LP study. All the things were wrong, as I documented, but let's just regard them as technical violations rather than substantive.

Interesting that NIPH is involved. They're not pushing for anything on the revised bad exercise review or other BPS stuff? Is Atle Freitheim involved?

I'm trying to keep a positive attitude, but it's hard.

Words like "ground-breaking," "world-first," etc are best not being tossed around like this--by scientists, press officers or the journalists who write about this stuff.

and would this be perceived as a "defeat" for the Lloyd and the rest of the GET/CBT ideological brigades there?

wow. just wow.

And it was only one-sided printing so there were more pieces, although it was worse for the environment.

Also...the MUS session was completely anti-MUS as a diagnostic category. I can see where the description of the session might have made it sound like somehow it was trying to explain why it might make sense to include ME in MUS but that of course was completely not the point. Joan Crawford, a...

This should not be taken as if they were trying to prove or say that it's better to have an ME specialist. That would be a misinterpretation. In the survey, they presumably asked respondents whether they got GET from from a self-styled specialist or a generalist. Given that the PACE folks always...

I said "ass," not "arse." I'm American!

yes, this seemed to be a settled agreement. I'm surprised it didn't survive past May.