Search results

Thanks. That should probably be 100 experts/academics and one countess. I wasn't sure where to put Margaret Mar. She's not considered an MP. I figured I could put her in the "expert" category for her professional policy-making role on House of Lords.

This is completely true. However, I'm a pragmatist and believe in pressing where you can get the most traction. The methodological flaws are egregious and should doom the study before even having to think about the ethics of the LP itself. Pointing out these flaws also makes it clear that the...

I don't know. Mary was working with the organizations. I assume we didn't know about them--there seem to be a lot of organizations that were not on our master list. sure, contact them, or have them contact me. We can update or repost as needed, I guess, if we get more names.

Why are editors now being maligned as an entire category?

Wow, Michael Sharpe has blocked me but is still tweeting at me. I haven't blocked him because I don't want to bother--he's free to see my tweets and I'll probably tweet my response anyway. I thought he had learned his lesson about tweeting. Poor guy. The intervention has failed.

That's very true, of course. But one big reason they don't have informed consent, per Helsinki, is that they did not disclose their links with insurance companies and government agencies. Helsinki's version in effect at the time mandated disclosure to prospective subjects of "any possible...

In terms of accusing people of being militants...If you disagree, you're obviously a militant and potentially dangerous. When I went to see Professor Crawley speak at Exeter last November, she told me that either she had consulted the police about me or had been told to consult the police about...

It all makes much more sense in the original Romanian, I'm sure. It's just a bad translation!

That's how I read it--the "by" was a typo--it should have been "but." In other words, the patient activists reject it, but most patients are not activists and they accept the validity of the treatments.

I think most people would maybe get that its a reference to "Waiting for Godot"

I didn't understand this at all. Why make things up?

PACE contains multitudes, like the Bible. No other evidence or references required. It is Truth incarnate.

I have updated the post with a link to Lucibee's analysis. Thanks!

well, I kind of disagree with myself as well. I just didn't want to spend time repeating the same things I've written 500 times. I assumed commenters would take on the task. I'd just rather spend time clipping my toenails or watching milk sour or something else.

Actually, I see the point. But they probably would be nervous about the prospect I'd tear up more papers from distinguished BPS people! And it might be hard to say, We'd like you to talk as long as you don't tear up PACE or Esther's papers.

Ha! Well I won't be holding my breath for that invitation!

At this point I'm hoping to go, yeah.

I think you misunderstand my last point. If you don't look at the objective results but you extend the feasibility trial based solely on feasibility considerations, can you extend it into a full trial, in your view?

Chris Ponting has made it clear to me that, unlike in previous years, I am welcome to attend. My presence last year obviously was not encouraged or desired! After sending another letter to the CMRC board last week to let them know about the open letter to The Lancet and BMJ's ongoing refusal to...

@Jonathan Edwards I guess my assumption in making the point was that the goal of a feasibility trial is to check the feasibility, and the choice about whether to continue it would be based on feasibility considerations, not on the outcomes or results. But thinking it through further after my...