Search results

Wow, they admitted they left out actigraphy because they knew that GET doesn't genuinely increase activity. Most here suspected this was the reason. But there it is, in black and white.

It is very honest for a study in this domain... Usually, people in this area just keep looking till they find something in their data that does support their conclusions and report that. These guys actually admit that the results surprised them! One of these days someone in the area will...

Thank you for posting, @Jo Best. Its really well written. A tiny bit over-emotional in parts.- but its hard not to be!

:rofl::rofl::rofl:!! Some fantastic imagery there! Go rover, go!

Haha, not surprising. I'd cheat too if my home life was being threatened by my doctor.

to White. But I've clarified anyway.

The statement @JohnTheJack is referring to was in Sharpe's formal letter to White declaring any conflicts of interest: Given that he is a doctor, this statement signals that he has no prior beliefs regarding which treatments are more effective. But in the very same statement, he's describing...

Would it be a digression to ask you about the airline safety example, @Lucibee? Afraid I'm ignorant about it.

Thanks all. It is so bizarre to see them still making major decisions as how to analyse the data four years after they first started collecting it, and almost as long since they published their trial protocol. I wonder why? Bad planning? Or were they motivated by the results they were receiving?

Yes, the problem in the past has been trying to argue the case based on evidence of an alternative pathology. That places the burden of proof on the person making the claim, and it is something psychosocial researchers capitalise on to support their arguments. Their explanation stands because...

I think the point was, the BPSers control a lot of the high impact journals. They would block any counter-narrative quick smart. Do people remember that awfully biased rejection this group got when they tried to submit to the BMJ? Similar article, I think. The reviewer banging on about how he...

Oh, no, I meant I wouldn't support any project he was leading. As far as I understand it, CMRC is just a loose association of researchers, those researchers still have to propose projects, and that's where the work will happen, right?

We should not support any project that Harrison is leading. It is indeed psychiatry with a reductionist (neuro) bent.

Sorry, @Alvin, this was not meant as a criticism of you at all. I thought it worth pointing out to all readers of the thread.

I think this is a good point, @Barry. That core value could be emphasised much more.

Can I point out that S4ME has never claimed to have "no censorship". We will censor rudeness, personal attacks, trolling behaviour, as per the rules. We will censor "ideas" if those ideas are racist, discriminatory, or they involve negatively characterising another member (e.g. I think you're an...

You make a good point, @Invisible Woman. AfME still have quite a large membership, and at least some of that could be down to new patients/new referrals. People that aren't even aware of the concerns.

Do you have a link to the article, @Cheshire?

Thanks, @Cheshire, its interesting to compare. The New Zealand system is certainly NOT one of the best in the world - we're too small and poor - but we do seem to do quite well for our budget. The Australian one is much better imo, great care there, and good access for all. Aussies who whine...

(says something like The French health system is the most efficient and most widely encompassing on the planet). Is that true, French folks? Or only true if you compare the French system to the appalling US one?