Search results

Possibly but other things he is saying suggest he doesn't understand how NICE works. His attitude is all very wishy washy yet he seems to think he knows what to do to help patients.

When doctors talk about individual care or tailoring things to patients it is important to realize this boils down to doctors having a lot of choice in what they tell patients. Patients will rarely have enough information to challenge the doctors views and suggestions (and doing so doesn't go...

I assume he is confusing trigger with cause or maybe he believes the trigger is the cause?

Given comments from Hammond saying he hope NICE would approve a diagnostic test It seems he is either completely unaware of the research or unaware of how NICE work (reviewing what exists). No one is anywhere near a diagnostic test.

There is talk of personalized medicine but I would see that as very different. It talks about the availability of much more data (such as omics) and then the use of this (in an evidence based way) to select treatments. It isn't about doctors choosing their favourite approach and calling it...

If we go to the idea of doctors basically doing what they want (or following their personal beliefs) which is what they are pushing here we end up in a really bad situation. The question for the colleges is are they just pushing this for ME or is this more of a general policy shift.

As far as I remember they intended to measure school attendence and talked about access to school records but they published results based on self-reported attendence with a claim that it correlated well with school records but no figures were given. School attendance can be quite dodgy in than...

Also there is no justification as to why those definitions would be a 'plurality of voices' rather that say people with ME from different socioeconomic backgrounds or PwME with a range of scientific skills etc. Its purely arbitry choices made I can only assume because Hilda thought it seemed...

The whole recruitment process seens a strange process in terms of a random mix with no assessment criteria ever being published so we have no idea why one person is chosen over another or why a mix of attributes are required (some such as 'non-activist', 'recovered' are defined but no rational...

I don't understand why anyone would say there is a need for agreement and unity. There is good and bad science and that is what needs to be recognized. There should be no compromise and negotiation with those backing bad science.

They are really relying on peer review to say that quality is achieved. One issue here is that peer review goes to such a small group of people who all produce poor quality research and don't recognize the issues; or have an interest in not challenging the same poor methodology that they use. So...

The thing that worries me is lots of people attribute improvements to stuff they are trying at the time and perhaps don't report on the things they try otherwise (or simply try stuff when they are improving). Thismakes it very hard to make any sensible intepretation of data collected from...

And he is talking about 'individualized' rehabilitation as being safe which is concerning especially with Greenalgh involved.

The figure would be 0 as they have no concept of what may be questionable

I think Rand were trying to male money on it so that could be the reason. I've also come across invited talks that don't get published as they are published elsewhere.

I do find it shocking that they don't seem to have stopped to think through the argument they are making and whether it is sound. It just seems like a skill lacking in a community. But maybe the real skill that needs to be taught is to reason through an argument when you believe in the outcomes...

I think metrics are also driven by citations so a bad study that gets cited as a bad study can help an academic.

My criticism isn't of her but of the appointment of someone who is so involved in cochrane onto an independent advisory group. As well as the language Hilda uses around 'contested areas' which suggests she doesn't get its about good or bad methodology but thinks its about debatable judgement calls.

But the editor is unrepentant at the error

Putting a cochrane loyalist on an independent advisory group doesn't make it sound very independent. But given this seems to basically be people Hilda chooses/likes I'm not surprised. Also what is this about contentious methods the review is about the basic competence of cochrane not about...