Trial By Error: My Six-Month Review

Now that's interesting ...
He made a particularly salient point: Although during the trial he appeared to increase how much he walked, he did so at the expense of engaging in other activities. In other words, even those who increased their walking distance in the PACE trial might have done so by compensating for that extra exertion elsewhere their lives. So as this participant explained, he didn’t in the end engage in more activity overall—just more walking.
Click to expand...
 
In other words, not only was Professor White involved in producing bad research and offering general guidance to the insurance industry based on that bad research, he also actively participated in the decision-making process in specific disability cases. At least based on the documentation in this situation, his role involved asserting that people who had not been through a round of CBT or GET that met his standards should not be awarded benefits.
Click to expand...

:banghead: :devilish: :wtf: What on earth motivates this level of disdain and hatred? I feel sick reading this.
 
He is doing some well researched and hard hitting analysis. This is something we definitely needed and need much more of. Where i would go next is getting it published in wider read venues, newspapers, scientific journals and other venues to reach larger audiences. Can someone pass this idea on to David?
 
Last edited:
I too would love to see David getting more published in more widely read publications, like newspapers and scientific journals. I'm sure he's well aware of this, but getting published is very difficult. He has had a few successes. And his researches provides material that any of the rest of us can use to support articles we might write ourselves, or refer journalists to for their articles.
 
Trish said:
I too would love to see David getting more published in more widely read publications, like newspapers and scientific journals. I'm sure he's well aware of this, but getting published is very difficult. He has had a few successes. And his researches provides material that any of the rest of us can use to support articles we might write ourselves, or refer journalists to for their articles.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, so the question becomes how can we make it happen, do we need to hire/find more people who specialize in writing for the venues we seek, how can we use his investigations to get retractions of flawed published material, how do we get newspapers to do more investigations/articles based on these findings?
 
Tuller is so gifted in the realm of reporting in great, accurate technical detail, which is something we have desperately needed.

But this is not what it is wanted in most mainstream outlets. Few people are interested in such detail, and even fewer in detail about
this topic.

But the way his work is informing journalists like Nathalie is the gift that keeps giving. So either he eventually distills his work into a multi-page-spread MSM blow-out, or he keeps providing this excellent foundation for others to bring it to a wider audience.

Either way he is a goddam hero. I can't wait to throw more money at him.

ETA: On second thought it's not an either/or, it could be a both/and. Thank you David!
 
Last edited:
Allele said:
Tuller is so gifted in the realm of reporting in great, accurate technical detail, which is something we have desperately needed.

But this is not what it is wanted in most mainstream outlets. Few people are interested in such detail, and even fewer in detail about
this topic.

But the way his work is informing journalists like Nathalie is the gift that keeps giving. So either he eventually distills his work into a multi-page-spread MSM blow-out, or he keeps providing this excellent foundation for others to bring it to a wider audience.

Either way he is a goddam hero. I can't wait to throw more money at him.

ETA: On second thought it's not an either/or, it could be a both/and. Thank you David!
Click to expand...
Agreed. Quite a lot of very media-savvy people now in different yet complementary advocacy roles, that they each excel in. Hopefully there are more waiting in the wings. If the advocacy pressure continues to increase, and broaden the demographic it reaches, then hopefully things will start to improve.
 
To be sure, I'm trying to find out when the first crowdfunding campaign began. From what I found it was in Summer 2017. The 1st post on the blog is from June 2017. Is that correct?

Not that I think he will shut up about it but there's this dude who keeps pretending that Tuller being funded in 2017 is a conflict of interest that, somehow, influenced writings all the way back to 2011 and, mostly, 2015. Unless he used that money to build a time machine. Which is a fair thing to consider when the basis for their ideology is that it simply has to be possible to be absolutely certain.

Although to be fair, it's not like violating the linear passage of time is a problem to BPS ideologues, it's their bread-and-butter.
 
They confuse cause and effect all the time, which implies they don't understand the way the arrow points. So, with that mindset, time travel, not just easy, but virtually impossible not to do inadvertently.
 
rvallee said:
Not that I think he will shut up about it but there's this dude who keeps pretending that Tuller being funded in 2017 is a conflict of interest
Click to expand...
It's like asserting that the lawyer you hire to argue your case in court has a conflict of interest. But that lawyer is simply being paid to best argue your case for you, because they are appropriately skilled to do so. If this all went to court and the BSP crowd were on the wrong end of some litigation, would they then argue that the prosecution lawyer had a conflict of interest, simply because they were being paid for their expert services? The lawyer essentially marshals cogent arguments to support a case, and the other side are fully at liberty to provide there own cogent arguments to the contrary.

@dave30th essentially does much the same for PwME, presenting immensely cogent, unbiased and accurate arguments on our behalf, and being remunerated via crowd funding. The fact the other side have no ability to provide there own cogent arguments in their defence is their problem, no one else's, and is for one very simple reason - they have none! All they can come up with in return is bluff and bluster, including erroneous accusation about conflicts of interest.

For a conflict of interest to hold water it would have to be shown that David's work is untruthful due to bias from that conflict of interest. But there are no untruths, just hard hitting truths.
 
rvallee said:
To be sure, I'm trying to find out when the first crowdfunding campaign began. From what I found it was in Summer 2017. The 1st post on the blog is from June 2017. Is that correct?

Not that I think he will shut up about it but there's this dude who keeps pretending that Tuller being funded in 2017 is a conflict of interest that, somehow, influenced writings all the way back to 2011 and, mostly, 2015. Unless he used that money to build a time machine. Which is a fair thing to consider when the basis for their ideology is that it simply has to be possible to be absolutely certain.

Although to be fair, it's not like violating the linear passage of time is a problem to BPS ideologues, it's their bread-and-butter.
Click to expand...
If NOT making money out of running BPS research and ‘treatments’ and ‘advisory’ etc means a conflict of interest in their backwards world ?

they might want to look up the definition of what financial interests and the conflicts that should be being declared are defined as and note that just because someone isn’t jumping to these doesn’t mean THEY are conflicted. It’s classic whoever smelt it dealt it tactic really backwards non-logic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom