Search results

you mean it can't? damn!

I hope this is a joke. No one should approach Professor Crawley on behalf of anything having to do with me. I hope that is clear to everyone.

yes I think this is a key point.

thanks for the various suggestions. So which would be the local education agency to which I would send a freedom of information request?

Of course that's one of the ridiculous things here. This was a pilot effort. So how could it have been service evaluation? There was no existing "service" to be evaluated.

I really appreciate MEAction's suggestion that people be restrained in their responses, and that they focus on key scientific points debunking PACE and this body of research. My own feeling about the article, beyond the prebuttals I felt I should write, has been just to wait and see what it...

Thanks, Stewart--someone else pointed that out. I can use that in follow-up posts. And then in some references it got changed to 11%. Not sure how that happened.

This would mean acknowledging they got it wrong and that PACE was wrong, and they have made it clear I think they won't do that. As a public health professional, I find that pretty disgraceful for the country's lead public health agency.

No, I meant the promise that this idea, if implemented, would produce savings. but it's obviously clunky phrasing. I actually myself kept thinking of premise was right. But then it would have had to be "this premise rests on..." I think rather than "the premise of this idea rests on..."

it was "unapproved" so I "approved" it. Who knows why the system had unapproved it? probably because of the length. but others that are long sometimes get through.

It is a mystery to me why the system does what it does. I'll try to check.

Prins 2001 says participants were identified by the CDC criteria except for the criterion that they needed to have four of the eight other symptoms. So it was an Oxford study but they decided to call it a Fukuda study for reasons unknown.

I love the first one--Mike Godwin. But Professor Sharpe also tweeted out a Guardian essay about denialism in science. Then it turned out the author--also an academic--had suffered for ME for a decade and had previously written about the flaws of the psychiatric model of the illness. then I...

I have too many great minds in my head that all think differently.

I definitely viewed it as an attempt at intimidation or as an effort to shut me up, as I've said. My concern was in the dissemination of the unverified statement that they tried to have me "fired." One thing is that I think someone questioned whether the vice-chancellor should have gone to the...

well this is not exactly the way it is for me. I'm not just an employee in California--I'm at the University of California, so I am a state employee as well as an academic. I'm not tenured so have no protection that way. But the university is also guided by norms. They couldn't just show me the...

Jennie Spotila blogged about my crowdfunding, and then Sharpe tweeted her post and wrote something like, "this is what we researchers have to put up with."

yes that's it. that's earlier than I thought. I was thinking they were around from like 2015. anyway as I understand it, they'd never heard much of PACE till they were questioned about it last year in front of the Science and Technology Committee by Monaghan etc.

The problem is those were not part of the primary outcomes that did get approval. The "normal range" analysis, which became the "recovery" thresholds for physical function and fatigue, was post-hoc--so they didn't need committee approval or anything like that. They didn't call their new...

Could be that was the intent. But the words in the document are the words in the document and no reason not to cite them at face value.