Search results

For sure! I'd love a look thanks.

Gabrielle Murphy's involvement with learning modules sounds terrible.

Likely to be terrible?!

Maybe they wanted to see how things shook out with Larun, the HRA, etc? Maybe they now feel they have cover for ignoring the problems with this research? Or I guess sometimes things just get delayed? I does look like a ridiculous piece of research if they're just interested in how to manipulate...

It could be just a well meaning individual who has struggled to understand all the details of the problems around ME/CFS. It's easy for people who've been following this stuff closely just how confusing it can be for people who are relatively new to it.

Here's the Rapid Response the letter was taken from: https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l4966/rr-0

Any COIs declared? He looks like the sort who might have attracted money from insurance companies: https://uk.linkedin.com/in/tony-williams-4b267412

The first paragraph of this paper of his also made me think of his PACE work... yuck. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/cambridge-quarterly-of-healthcare-ethics/article/reflections-on-the-nature-of-public-ethics/94A53F672D5362318A3F430B43935E7A#xml=http://journals.cambridge.org/data/userPdf/

The most high profile publicity we've got over the last few years has been Kelland's pieces that portrayed patient advocacy efforts as 'radical' and a threat to good science. That sort of visibility is not useful for us and it is worth doing what we can to avoid it imo. We're a weak group whose...

Was just looking through Jonathan Montgomery's old twitter account (https://twitter.com/prof_jonM), and saw this, in addition to his clear chummyness with Gerada:

It's just absurd how bad Bristol have been. Thanks to @dave30th for putting himself through this nonsense.

He seems uninterested in genuinely listening to patients, rather than trying to smear those he doesn't like and use those who tell him what he wants to hear. I'm so sick of propagandists like him. On PACE: https://forskning.no/me-medisin-sykdommer/hard-kritikk-av-stor-me-studie/330976#...

IMO: if he's the sort of person who falls for this sort of empty spin from authority figures then he's probably not the best person to prioritise raising concerns with. It might still be worth a go, but what we've seen so far has not been impressive.

Thanks to all those paying attention to this - I fear it could be one of those things that turns out to be more important for us than we'd realised.

Quite a few references from Lewandowsky, who has done his bit promoting lazy prejudices on this topic. Looking for those old references turned up this 2013 blog, which rather misrepresents attempts to get information about PACE: http://www.shapingtomorrowsworld.org/lskymannSubter.html

He seems to miss (evade?) every point. I think this new blog is even more contemptible than the first. It's as if he really thinks that knowing what he's talking about is entirely unnecessary.

edit: @Barry already posted these links back in 2017 - https://www.s4me.info/threads/trial-by-error-a-sneak-preview-of-next-week%E2%80%99s-post-27-december-2017.1677/#post-28696 The HRA has helpful guides on 'is it research' and 'do I need NHS REC approval'...

It's so worrying having Bristol take a lead on how clinical trials should be run.

Free reservations for a Fiona Fox talk in Bristol on 25th November!: Science in the headlines – where science meets controversy by NIHR Bristol Biomedical Research Centre https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/science-in-the-headlines-where-science-meets-controversy-tickets-77144333779

That is so often the case. Why can't they just stay quiet, at least until they've spoken to someone who knows what they're talking about?