Search results

Yes, I agree with this. That's why I asked the questions about sponsorship and arrangements. I got a pro forma response from an administrative person with a promise that I would get a substantive response from the appropriate person or people.

well I didn't say he was being honest!

Yeah, I also assume this is Cochrane--those reviews agree with the PACE conclusions is how I read it, so in that sense he's claiming they prove PACE was good.

Thanks!

This is true, but it's more or less the same message with which the trial was introduced to the public. And the FITNET-NHS site on the Bristol page isn't much better. So the ad very much resembles the Bristol approach to recruitment, although maybe it's a little blunter. In any event, the local...

Is this on twitter? It would be great if people could post screen-shots. I think it's probably a waste of time to respond to Sharpe at this stage of the debate. What's the point? Is someone listening to him?

That occurred to me but I didn't want to speculate. The recruitment phase on the website still has a long way to go, so it might just be in the normal course of things.

Also, self-reported school attendance is still self-reported--to measure school attendance as an objective measure you'd have to get the school records.

I've been asked about further plans for the open letter and so on, so here are some thoughts. Last week was the third time this open letter was sent to Horton and posted on Virology Blog. With this week's Times and BMJ articles, the letter has done a chunk of what I hoped it would do. (There's...

I'm planning to write an open letter to Godlee about this article and some other things. It bugs me that they don't even bother to cite the open letter, in case people want to read it.

I tried to interest Brian Deer in the issue a couple of years ago, around the time of the first-tier tribunal. He was completely uninterested. It's possible he might have changed his mind, I supposed.

Absolutely. I am sure this would not have happened without the Times article. Even the opening phrasing is similar, and the list of universities represented. Coverage generates coverage. This article in BMJ has now made it news not just in the general world but in the medical journal world...

@Lucibee this is very interesting, thanks for pulling the timeline together. Andrew Lloyd in Australia also did a 1993 study that showed no benefits for CBT. Later, of course, he changed his mind on that one.

I would love to have more MPs. I did a big second e-mail blast to them and didn't get any more, but personal appeals would likely be more effective. In terms of the Times publishing the full letter, I would guess they would feel they did their duty by running the article. But I'll check it out...

In re-reading it, I realize I should have made it clear up top that those recovery rates were post-hoc and really just bogus. As written, that's not clear till later down in the post.

Yes, Tom Whipple deserves credit for getting it into the paper.

yeah, I dislike that phrase. The PACE authors don't think that anyway. They genuinely believe people have bad symptoms. They have just insisted the symptoms come from deconditioning, not an underlying organic illness.

I'm not sure how much "worse" it gets. I think it's pretty bad to promote not only recovery rates but bogus recovery rates for an intervention that you're supposed to be testing.

Wow, I don't think I could take that much happiness and joy!

It shouldn't require any subscription.