Towards an institute for patient-led research - Trish Greenhalgh, BMJ blog November 12, 2019

[Caroline Struthers]

A couple of comments have now appeared....maybe try again??

OK. Well I posted a comment in agreement the one that questioned whether lack of equipoise was only a problem with patients, and it didn't get through the approval stage (presumably because I mentioned PACE), so I posted another one saying I was keen to join the discussion, but having trouble! I expect that will not be posted either!

 

[rvallee]

A couple of comments have now appeared....maybe try again??

I'll give it another day and re-submit tomorrow. Still pending. Weird how one of the comments is timestamped as 3 days ago yet only appeared today.

 

[Caroline Struthers]

OK. Well I posted a comment in agreement the one that questioned whether lack of equipoise was only a problem with patients, and it didn't get through the approval stage (presumably because I mentioned PACE), so I posted another one saying I was keen to join the discussion, but having trouble! I expect that will not be posted either!

Sure enough - it's not been posted. So much for free speech eh?!

 

[Hoopoe]

"patient involvement" that does not include dissenting voices is just a way to let researchers deflect criticism of insufficient patient involvement while continuing to do exactly what patients don't want.

 

[ME/CFS Skeptic]

"patient involvement" that does not include dissenting voices is just a way to let researchers deflect criticism of insufficient patient involvement while continuing to do exactly what patients don't want.

Well said.

 

[Sly Saint]

 

[rvallee]

I'll give it another day and re-submit tomorrow. Still pending. Weird how one of the comments is timestamped as 3 days ago yet only appeared today.

Re-submitted 3 days ago. Both still left at "pending". Oh, well.