Search results

I wish I could have been there.

This could very well be true, especially if the original draft included material from Professor Crawley. Given that her work is now under investigation, it would have been difficult to include quotes from her about horrible patients or my supposed "harassment" of her without mentioning that my...

No, it likely means there is other news--Brexit, plane crashes--that are taking up people's attention this week.

For the SMC's tenth anniversary hoo-hah, Kate wrote a testimonial about how helpful the organization was when she covered the Japan nuclear accident. Basically, she acknowledged outsourcing her independent editorial judgement to the SMC. Why bother finding your own sources when the SMC provides...

I'm not sure why you would be so suspicious.

She somehow didn't bother to include one and then said my 15,000-word piece was posted on the site of a Berkeley colleague. So, you know, she got that obvious fact wrong.

well...I'm crowdfunding in April, when Berkeley's platform is open. So maybe it will be helpful.

well that's a point. It could also play differently in US and UK, I guess.

yes it's Kate!

Kate's article is a bunch of nonsense, as everyone can see. I see no reason to avoid sharing it or linking to it. I actually suspect the lack of any scientific discussion will indicate to intelligent readers that they have no arguments other than complaining about "abusive" critics.

yeah, I was surprised also.

I've just added an update to the post. Norway has a website where agencies list their documents and correspondence and people--anyone--can ask to see them.

The date is at the end: April 10, 2018. The author is the person at Cochrane who was given responsibility to assess Bob's complaint.

Of course, they promised to vet the self-reported school attendance with actual records from the schools. The official records were not reported, although they reported benefits for self-reported school attendance at 12 months. They provided no explanation for the absence of the official records.

Since she swapped primary and secondary outcomes midway through, it is hard to see how she could have been surprised by the results.

thanks I hadn't seen this before

No it's new to me. I'm going to read them.

I thought about the title precisely for the reason you mention. And then I thought, screw it. They're stupid studies.

Hi, what are you reading here from Crawley? Are you maybe conflating Crawley and Chalder and reading Chalder's testimony from the tribunal?

Too bad I'm not in England next week. I'd like to go.