Search results

Its a good quote and shows a particular view point an the lack of reasoning behind it.

I really think this debate is missing the point it should be about good and bad science - i.e. how theories are formed and tested. When we talk about theories such as the psychosomatic ones it should be up to the proponants to demonstrate evidence that makes them worth testing (and they have...

You are probably right I was thinking arranging interviews and getting journalist contacts can be hard but remembered he is friends with the journalist who interviewed him on newsnight so obviously has contacts

Yes they should have done a correction for the number of primary outcomes. There is also the issue of dropouts.

I worry it is individualized in the same way as a model T ford. You can have whatever GET you want as long as it is GET.

Someone is organizing press coverage for him. He may just be seen as a better press spoke person.

Isn't it part of the 'treatment' to tell everyone you are better. The question I have is who is arranging the media blitz (and I would say being quite unethical in using garner's beliefs).

Homeopathists would in the same way as those with beliefs about exercise are now.

Also I think GET (according to PACE) has quite an 'educate patients to think differently' angle to it which helps encourage response bias

If I remember correctly they filed the patent and then failed to pay the fees so effectively the patent is void but acts as prior art and prevents others trying to get the IP prior to paper publication (or with the patent offices dodgy searches), Although the normal route to thus would be a...

I wonder if its just a lack of competance they have no advantage to doing that so feels like a lack of rigour and showing they don't believe in (or read) their own protocols.

As you would expect they don't seem to take too much notice of the protocol as they write the paper and claim what are secondary outomes. The secondary outcomes for PRINCE secondary were (according to the trial registration https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/study/NCT02426788) tha last two...

The harms paper Graham and others wrote tried to look at what recording they do in clinics to see if they would know if patents improved or got worse and they didn't have strong enough recording for clinics to know if people are harmed. Therefore I assume that by 'clinical experience' what they...

I assume they have not adjusted their significance tests for the number of secondary outcomes they are looking at - they don't mention that they do. Not sure what is normal but if they are claiming results based on it it looks dodgy. I

Are there that many to select from?

I assume that it is a conflict of interest if her clinic is busy doing GET (by what ever name she chooses to call it) and a potential serious issue of NICE say its not effective and she plans to keeps billing the work to the NHS. Of course perhaps since that video (which was a long time ago)...

So the PSP recruitment happened during the pandemic (it is only UK wide) and I do realize the issues with working with the pandemic. Its not unusual for me to spend all day on zoom and then have to spend my evenings and weekends catching up with work (which is what I should be doing now!). But...

So maybe more controvertial in terms of peer review could S4ME be a peer reviewer as a group? I know that goes againt the normal model. I assume there would be confidentiality concerns but we could put together a group of patients to review and have a private forum to work in an collate comments...

Will some peer reviewers be drawn from the patient community?

One thing I think is important is this It is really important that patients get to comment on the protocol as that is at the heart of what the review will say and whether it will be any good. I am worried about the brief comment as patients need time to digests if brief is say just a week that...