Search results

And perhaps a critique of that - especially the one which pointed that it's a revealing choice of anology because with scientific trials you are not supposed to predetermined the destination and make adjustments in the steering to make sure it gets there. Can't remember who wrote it, but it was...

How marvellous to see Simon Wessely wading in to try and stop his mate Michael Sharpe making a complete fool of himself, only to shoot himself in the foot even more spectacularly when his smug remarks end up ensuring that criticism of PACE is given more publicity, including to his old friends...

What a great example of transparency, engagement and taking feedback on board that was @adambeyoncelowe :thumbup:. More in one post that we've had from AfME in three months since they joined.

I'm sorry but you clearly don't understand homeopathy. It's now time to give you two oceans instead of one.

That's not a very specific reference - "please see the internet"! The reaction of the body to what? That's exactly what the PACE authors say - have you read the paper? If you have and you still have any questions, you obviously didn't read it properly, so read it again.

Trolling. And given his track record he's in no position to define what is logical and what isn't. If the trial had never happened the denial of treatment & support would not have been the same. The precise purpose of the trial was to make it easier to enable such policies. Otherwise, why else...

Indeed. I was of course making the mistake of assuming that most people are rational, whilst forgetting that there seem to be many who are only self-interested, corrupt or just batshit crazy. This is similar to the point I was trying to make earlier, whilst referring to paediatricians ...

There is sufficient evidence to assert that there is not sufficient evidence to assert that the condition is mental or psychogenic. If anyone wants to claim that the condition is mental or psychogenic, or that there even is such a thing as a psychogenic illness, then it is up to them to provide...

Some might find this helpful: Or for a bit more detail, this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07wgmfd

I must say, anything I receive anonymously goes straight into the bin.

Without commenting on the letter itself, I'm not quite sure I agree with this point. Paediatricians, doctors and even researchers often seem as likely to respond positively to dodgy research as sufferers and senders of letters themselves. Following my appointment and diagnosis at the university...

Blame the patient. If that doesn't work, blame the therapist. Blame the critics. Blame everybody except the trial authors, whose intuitive wisdom is beyond question.

It continues ... Note that Sharpe is posting at ten past midnight.

Wow, you've got a long memory ... Funnily enough when I read your posts that's the voice I always hear you speaking in too ... what are the chances? As long as it's Les Dawson you should be ok.

Super, we'll have a look at the data from your trials please. The virology blog is a very available platform and has been inviting you to get the evidence out there and clear up a few misunderstandings for quite some time. And while you're at it, ask your mates from the PACE trial to get the...

"... that is our patients" is a phrase that cannot correctly exist in the English language, especially in a sentence about summarizing complicated messages. Fish in a barrel. Can't be bothered.

and threaten to have them withdrawn and the children sectioned if everybody doesn't do what Esther says.

Me too. When I'm not fit for anything else, I can lie on my sofa doing chess puzzles on my smartphone for hours. Haven't got a clue about the name of that guy on the telly I watch every week though, or what I did last weekend, or why I just thought about standing up.

Have they co-authored a paper with Chalder?

Seems perfectly consistent and logical to me. What she's saying is that ME sufferers should always listen to experts but never be allowed to listen to themselves.