Search results

Oxford criteria on their own may not automatically label PACE bad science, however, NICE is not solely about good or bad science, it is about the application and interpretation of science. If they want to apply PACE findings to ME then surely this must be considered as being poor...

If people choose to exercise for whatever reason so be it, but I would have thought it's bad advice to tell people to exercise when A) it's a hallmark of the disease that exercise can aggravate symtoms B) there is no evidence for it doing any good C) exercise for a healthy person and for a PWME...

I think this is a huge issue. If we are going to stick with evidence then the "something is better than nothing" approach needs to be kicked out. It would be far better if they offered Nothing and doctors realised that that was the reality, rather than hiding behind non treatments to ease their...

:D You only made two posts on here, before today, with the word Elsevier. So if they weren't the right posts I might have gotten stuck.

Maybe this one was the original so.

This post?

That's amazing news!

That is most important, and this thread is about discussing how to get pharma involved. So far I haven't seen anything that suggests there is anything worth pursuing here. If you have more information please do share. Jonathan Edwards has already said he was involved in a workshop with a...

Sorry, I just can't see how this is remotely possible. Unless there is data from multicentred trial which shows efficacy in treating ME patients with a drug, and somehow the drug company has not already filed a new drug indication for it. If you can provide more information then please do.

Startups are all about risk really. It's not their ability to absorb it, a lot of them don't and end up on the scrapheap. But for those that survive the rewards for early investors are massive. The Venture Capitalists accept the risk because the payoff can be so big, if 9 out of 10 startups go...

Pfizer announcement on their decision to exit neuroscience research. https://www.pfizer.com/news/featured_stories/featured_stories_detail/learn_more_about_our_neuroscience_r_d_decision?linkId=46901181

I know you re keen to get pharma involved, but remember pharma is a business. If they think they can make money they will be all over it in an instant. If there is too much risk they will stay away. A lot of the big pharma companies don't do much new research now because there is too much...

I agree. The problem is, for most people they have no reason to suspect it's not true. Scientists are almost given a free pass when it comes to fact checking, i bet it wouldn't cross most people's mind to even doubt that what the scientist is saying, never mind to go away and fact check it...

The woman doesn't know the difference between Science and pseudoscience, she is a danger to everyone. It doesn't matter if she is outnumbered, if she has a key role she will orchestrate things her way to her agenda, that's how it works.

Fang Shi-min uncovering clinics promoting unproven treatments, sharing a prize with Wessely, leading clinics promoting unproven treatments. You couldn't make it up. Maybe Fang should base himself in the UK for a while.

I got the impression she was on the panel not a facilitator. If so I don't think i would interpret her silence in that passage as meaning she was not interested. ETA I wasn't there so I don't know!

Natasha Loder: This would be the ultimate test, is she brave enough to judge the organisation for which she is invited to adjudicate? She was part of the panel discussion with Wessely last year.

Would you have agreed with this :

Did anyone else find this odd? Is it within COPEs remit to advise specific action on communication? And what does "problematic" imply? That they know it stinks and want to avoid drawing attention to it?

Performing scientific research on children without ethical approval must be one of the worst offences a researcher can make. I can't see anyone defending this. I think university of Bristol needs to make a clear statement where they stand on this.