Search results

I wonder if you were excluded more because you declared a view as a potential COI? It wouldn't amaze me if the selection process failed to do any serious assessment of people, and just left it to candidates to decide for themselves what should be viewed as a COI?

I've not thought about whether any form of protest would be useful at this point, but I think that the make-up of the committee is more important than the scope document at the moment. If the committee was free of people with a vested interest in ignoring/downplaying problems with current ME/CFS...

Thanks for posting - I thought I'd copy and paste the text, to help it turn up on google searchers for anyone checking context to a quote:

"FYI: Recovery Norway @RecoveryNor was founded as a formal organization Jan 2018. We launched our public as a network Sept 2017. But its inception with the recruitment of the first members occurred on Feb/Mar 2017. When we wrote the features we were already becoming about 70 I think." If Vogt...

Or at least, that's the impression they're trying to give you. A lot of the people so far announced look terrible and incompetent, with clear vested interests in turning a blind eye to the problems with the way that they have been making their money.

Wow - thanks for letting us know about all this.

Nah, it was just 'advanced search'. That's all it has ever been...

From Alison Wearden, one of the worst quacks going. The FINE trial treatment guide is just vile, and that they got null results for their primary outcome hasn't stopped her promoting it either. Funded by the MRC Doctoral Training Partnership... to make sure people like Wearden can keep passing...

Who choose those people to write the report? It really doesn't look like a good selection (for us).

Yes - as ever my focus is on the things I think we need to fight to try to change, but those names were certainly cheering to see.

The 'comments' file is missing for me, so if anyone has a copy, save it! https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/gid-ng10091/documents/consultation-comments-and-responses

No matter how terrible things are, they could nearly always be worse. That's not particularly cheering news, and she sounds completely unfit to be on a committee like this.

This does not look good.

From the trial registration for that MS study: http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN25692173 Can anyone see the results for their MRI outcome? Looks like they only reported the subjective self-report outcomes in their paper...

Having so many BPS committee members also makes me deeply worried about the chair and vice-chair, assuming they were involved with the selection process.

With a couple of exceptions, the professional members look pretty bad to me. I think we're in for a gruelling fight. Joanne Bond-Kendall https://apcp.csp.org.uk/content/joanne-bond-kendall https://www.csp.org.uk/frontline/article/childrens-pain-we-can-make-it-better

Not watched the programme yet, ut found this article pretty annoying. No mention of the problems with PACE... https://www.sbs.com.au/news/insight/article/2018/10/12/can-exercise-help-manage-symptoms-chronic-fatigue-syndrome?fbclid=IwAR0URqKxTUW-UOVW6GhYMcwZSDEa_9bKL8VmQxXo3y6sL0YW_JmWKrbBG9s

This seems to indicate something is going on beneath the surface.

Thanks for those examples @Sly Saint No review that I've ever seen published. It's just the initial results from FITNET isn't it? Are there any other trials that have such a divergent recovery rate? Seems pretty misleading to present those figures as a reflection of the world's literature.

Amazing work - thanks so much for all this Mike.