Search results

I don't really know what I'm talking about that, but I thought that they seemed good too.

There seem to be ad-homs and overly-generalised statements on both sides. I felt that some people were over-hyping the importance of the hoax, and some people were being overly dismissive of it and its perpetrators. I don't feel supportive of either side, both of whom seem to downplay how...

Got to admit that I don't really understand the politics of the US situation, but best wishes to all those working to improve things.

I knew I'd seen that figure somewhere! Likely to be of interest to @AR68 too.

I don't remember that. Where did you see that?

Thanks Andy. These are minor points: I guess that you can't really withdraw an unpublished review, so it was just the protocol that was withdrawn, indicating that the planned review will now not be published. Also, the statement says that it was not the authors who withdrew it but: "The...

I'm not sure what thread is most appropriate for this, but there's a new piece from Ioannidis on this: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/eci.13058 I think I agree with this point: I'm worried that Cochrane is currently in a weakened position that makes it more difficult to...

White looked very involved in the IPD protocol - a co-author and the funder of a meeting for devising the protocol. For the 2017 one (which was really published in 2014, but it gets a new publication date when feed back is incorporated) it says this: "We would like to thank Peter White and...

There is a disturbing tolerance for trash research in a lot of journals, and I've seen some criticism that this hoax doesn't really show much about grievance studies (as opposed to anything else): https://slate.com/technology/2018/10/grievance-studies-hoax-not-academic-scandal.html That the...

They carry on the page numbers with their next issue, eg this from the year before: http://www.amsi.ge/jbpc/21717/jbpc21717.html

I think that hyped claims about recovery are also an important part of the issue, along with encouraging people to 'think positively' and spend limited funds on treatments that have no real evidence of efficacy.

And then the final page: "You determine what happens this Christmas. There is personal choice in deciding how you will manage Christmas." Okay - I'll recover then. Awesome.

Here's KCL on CFS: https://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id=41185 Cumbria on CFS: https://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id=21476 Oxford on CFS: https://impact.ref.ac.uk/casestudies/CaseStudy.aspx?Id=17492 Edinburgh on MUS and CFS...

There was loads of spin and hype from UK universities looking to take creadit for how much they've helped CFS patients in REF2014... looks like 2021 is going to be terrible too: https://www.s4me.info/threads/matthew-hotopf-on-panel-deciding-criteria-for-assessing-research-in-ref2021.3170/

Looks like this was taken from research on how to define recovery (and there are good reasons for concern about Crawley having influence over research on this)...

Thanks for posting, and to those commenting. The politics of this do seem a bit interesting.

New CMRC minutes: https://www.s4me.info/threads/november-cmrc-minutes.7053/

I saw someone asking about the James Lind Alliance priority setting work recently: We still don't know what happened with that Nutt study: Go Tuller!

Some people find night-time viewing to be easier on their eyes: https://support.microsoft.com/en-gb/help/4027563/windows-10-set-your-display-for-night-time For some reason I found looking down at portable devices with moving images could trigger problems with dizziness, etc. I don't know why...

Tagging this to come back to later. There's just too much stuff I want to read right now!