Search results

well, they also got the approval date wrong--they said it was 2007

I think in any response the limits of their remit must be emphasized. Although I agree that even within their remit this analysis falls short.

what does "the supplement of the categorical outcome scores by measures of improvement" mean? what is that referring to? The post-hoc "improvement" findings?

Another circle jerk? Add: just saw @Peter Trewhitt's reference to the same

Ha! Good point.

well, I have just had a talk with the video folks at the news organization, and was told that publication was not imminent but likely to be a bit in the future. So there's more waiting.

Yes and I've referred to it more than once at this point.

this is true--although whether they WILL be ignored is the question.

More or less, yes. I suppose some cases might be borderline. Not the school absence study. You also can't use an opinion about pediatric studies to exempt adult studies. I mean, the adult study might be service evaluation on its own. But not because of a pediatric REC opinion.

Yeah I wrote about that at some point. It's all an inside job. I like how they "gave" Tom Feilden a story and then nominated him for the prize for the story they gave him. And then he gave a glowing testimonial for SMC's 10th anniversary promotional report. Very cool how they all support each other!

Well, basically yes. The problem is that to win a libel case you really need to prove damages. Since Esther's false accusation enhanced my reputation and undoubtedly helped my subsequent crowdfunding, it would be impossible to make any argument that I suffered any damages. Not that I would have...

No problem! I fail to see how posting a slide in which Professor Crawley is accusing me of writing "libellous blogs" could be construed as "harassment."

Good point. I retract my suggestion. I have no doubt what the investigation SHOULD find, but what it actually will find could be another matter. The academic/medical establishment here seems to have many ways to justify bad behavior, and clearing someone in an investigation despite evidence...

Given that she is officially under investigation, it might be time to challenge that commendation.

The very fact that she interviewed anyone in person automatically makes it research that should never have been published without ethical review.

I agree 100%.

In NY I was once heading to visit my nephew in Kew Gardens, a neighborhood in Queens. I sent a message to a friend that I was heading there, and auto-correct changed it to Jew Gardens. Now, the neighborhood is popular with members of my tribe, but still.

I was at the hearing. It's true she included participants. I did not get from what she said that it would include non-authors but I'm a bit hard-of-hearing and didn't yet have my great new Bose hear-phones (yes, hear-phones, for anyone with mild to moderate hearing loss not yet ready to spend...

It was a backbench debate late on a Thursday afternoon when everyone else was off having cocktails or engaging in pre-theatre lovemaking sessions. It is not really at all surprising there was no coverage.

I agree 100%. They have used this issue in a disgraceful manner--regardless of the existence, or not, of such a tape.