Search results

It has, I can now spot bullshit a mile off. I misread this as "... and the deliberate discomfort it has caused them".

I hope they've remembered to patent exercise 5 of their novel intervention. It would be a travesty if someone else got in there first and made a fortune from it.

Are those last five words not redundant? Doesn't everything on this planet take place "in the presence of gravity" without having to be designed? I reckon I could have ensured that gravity didn't excuse itself during the intervention and got my name on the paper too. Or does it mean all the...

Just checked - no users have logged in to S4ME from that IP address.

I have been paying attention to my symptoms in a negative and grumpy way for the last 5 years and have improved significantly.

The article also says: and So if it's not available on the NHS and is taught by non-medical practitioners, what exactly does Crawley mean by "without medical care"? Surely this isn't Crawley-speak for "withut coughing up your money to an LP practitioner"? She's basically saying the magic...

I just put that observation up there, without meaning anything by it. It doesn't necessarily mean that there was anything wrong with the investigation, for example they could have had enough evidence / witnesses without having to call members of the ME/CFS team. I've no idea how Stanford...

I'm surprised that he didn't know the identity of his accusers throughout the investigation until after he'd been fired and read it in the the Stanford article.

I defy anyone not to chuckle when reading that intro. Followed by this gem of a phrase in the next sentence ... Conjuring up as it does images of promiscuous goings on, a pretender to the throne, and the "b" word. Splendid writing, just splendid.

Blimey, looks like we'll have to add "find out how to break a curse" to our list of things to do. One for EC perhaps if she feels like doing something useful for a change.

Advertising fluff. "I never thought another washing powder would get my clothes even whiter ..." If you're selling something it's common practice to express amazement along the lines of "I never would have believed it ..."

So on that basis it doesn't look like he's been accused of scientific misconduct, but another kind of matter. ETA: Looks like it's well beyond the charges stage, the investigation has been completed and a decision made.

I'm finding it hard to imagine how an article like this could get published without someone, somewhere, having decided that the SMC could just go f*** themselves. And that in a national newspaper too. Rather encouraging.

Well this post has seen the light of day. I will let my moderator colleagues decide what, if anything, needs to be done with it. But as I am the only moderator online at the moment and the post is enjoying the light of day, I would like to correct a few inaccuracies. Firstly, nobody has been put...

I was stating a fact. Members who would like to contribute to this thread are being prevented from doing so because they feel uncomfortable with all the labels flying around. Yep, that's what I'm talking about. Whatever dog piling is. It's all very well people calling for politeness and using...

Because they have told the moderators. I wouldn't have written it if I hadn't known it to be the case. What's your perception based on? Calling people hostile and aggressive isn't a very useful perspective when we're trying to have a conversation.

Actually the opposite is the case. Some who would like to ask questions, express concern or be critical are deciding not to post because they don't want to be accused of being dismissive, aggressive or hostile. Closing down scientific debate is not what this forum was set up for, so can we stop...

Well I had to look up LMK in the urban dictionary and the double and triple negatives are doing my head in. I'll have another look at it after I've had a lie down and LYK if I spot anything amiss.

I'm sorry but I just can't accept that "reasonable" is appropriate here, it's only one step above "plausible", which is how all kinds of useless / dangerous quackery gets a free pass. "Balance of probabilities" is a standard used in civil cases, basically more likely than not, above 50/50...

The reasonable man, the man on the Clapham omnibus, the balance of probabilities, beyond reasonable doubt - these are standards used in a legal context. I'm very surprised to hear them used in a medical / scientific context, when discussing claims / evidence. I have never heard them used in this...