Search results

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.

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.