Search results

I think Russell's going to correct the cost error shortly. Sorry about that.

Sorry, I'm confused. about the £1.5 million. What was the right figure? Thought I pulled that from a reliable source, but did I accidentally change the currency or something? Be worth getting the MEA folks to fix that.

Thanks, @Lucibee. It actually went past the eyes of three different people, but alas we still did not catch everything!

Yes, they will! So I expect I'll hear about it here at S4ME before I hear about it from them!

I think that's an excellent idea, @Hutan. I might talk to our press office about whether they're interested (I think the answer will be yes!). Actually, I have just written a piece for the MEA newsletter, which should come out some time this week. It tells a little of the back story behind the...

Sooo... people with ME simultaneously catastrophise about what's happening and also pretend its not happening... they simultaneously lack perseverance and try way too hard... they simultaneously do too little exercise and overdo activities... these simultaneous paradoxical states are just doing...

Pretty taken aback by this article. By a colleague in my own department too. I've also sent a letter. Its way too long, but I'm hoping they might give me special dispensation as a fellow psychologist!

Good point, @Sean.

That's exactly it!

Update: since I last wrote there has been much frantic action by the BMC editor to hurry our response through. I don't think there was any intention to the delay, after all it was the editor who invited me to write a response in the first place. BMC's interests are best served by hosting a...

We were actually invited to write a reply to this, which Tom Kindlon and I did. I'm surprised it hasn't come out at the same time as the Sharpe response. This is very distressing, as obviously, its much better to be able to reply at the same time. Hopefully, because the journal is fully online...

I wanted to add that in the above figure, there are different Ns (sample sizes) for the different analyses. Because, well, obviously the number of people that meet ICC or London criteria in addition to Oxford criteria is smaller than the entire cohort. This means that not all the analyses will...

Welcome, @Peter Kemp! Sorry, I've only just caught up with this thread. I don't log on as often as I'd like. I wanted to make one more point about the issue of case definition and the PACE trial. If you make the claim that the improvements reported by patients in the PACE trial reflect genuine...

Yes. I'm happy to share this material publicly. Its important to keep in mind that the manuscript being reviewed here was a little different from the final one that got published in BMC Psychology. It was written with a tight word limit in mind, and it included some data from our reanalyses but...

No, not at all. In my 20+ year career as an academic, I've had nothing that even comes close to this. Some reviewers are supportive, some critical. Some are closely tied to their own interests or perspectives and want you to talk more about those. Addressing these kinds of criticisms can feel...

:rofl::trophy@!

No, no reason. The BMJ simply requested that we did not. They expressed it as an "expectation". I also had certain "expectations" when I submitted work to their journal. They were not fulfilled. So I feel absolutely no obligation to fulfil their "expectations". I did, however, say that I would...

And my reply to their response:

This is so funny!, He must just trot out his favourite phrases over and over again. Never mind the 20 year gap, eh?