Search results

1. Selflessness Holders of public office should act solely in terms of the public interest. That rules out 99% of human beings then. Can anyone look at UK society and think that these are really the principles which guide public figures?

I think that whether I was too harsh or not really depends on exactly how AfME seek to gather further information. From their history, I think it's reasonable to have low expectations, and to think that any responses that they get will be no more valuable than vague anecdotes from anonymous...

I'm not a fan of the AfME statement. [edit: Maybe I was too hard on that statement because AfME have been so bad at asking tough questions to authority figures in the past? I might come back and re-read this later]. edit 3: There are some things about this response that are sign of a positive...

The more decent people on the committee the better, but at the same time, this is already a busted flush, and any guidelines this committee develops are going to be terrible for patients. Also, that it seems that chair and vice chair were heavily involved with the selection of the panel it...

Regardless of who the other members of the committee are, some of these members just are not fit to serve. That they were appointed makes it look like the system is committed to ignoring the problems with the way ME/CFS patients are treated.

And Nater U is probably the most ridiculous quack I'm aware of. So a bunch of people who want careers from poor research into this stuff got together and decided that: Interesting.

It shouldn't take this long!

It say I need an account before I can see it.

Yes. Also, as I wasn't clear on this I thought I'd say that I meant 'cautious' as in: trying to ensure that every little claim we make can be supported by clear evidence. Not 'cautious' as in: failing to challenge those with power who are behaving badly.

That's pretty besides the point.

I'm sure those null results will start getting rare once people have realised they can get away with Crawley's trick of 'pre-registering' half way through your trial, like she did with the SMILE trial.

Thanks for all those notes Dolphin. I struggle to remember the details of just PACE, nevermind all those other trials too.

I wasn't defending Blakemore's view at all, just suggesting cautious language on the matter of causation, particularly given all the prejudices we face.

Nah that would only happen in a world where the truth mattered.

There's no good reason to think that ME/CFS is a psychological, but the cause of ME/CFS hasn't been established yet, and it's worth being cautious with ny claims here given the way in which they're trying to attack us for being ideologically opposed to potential psychosocial models of illness.

Their responses were posted on the Cochrane review, along with Courtney's comments.

They already had good justifications for withdrawal. Larun choosing to behave badly again may have helped put political pressure on Cochrane, but it provided no real reason to not withdraw the review. Cochrane had already been too 'reasonable' to Larun, and thus unreasonable to those who are...

The following comes from a sleep-deprived and grumpy brain: Courtney's comments were submitted in 2016. Larun got away with BS responses then. Two years later when Cochrane tried to to withdraw her seriously flawed work to stop it causing more harm Larun chose to take part in a smear campaign...

Wessely?

We're not really able to apply pressure here - Wessely and his mates are. We can draw attention to the problems with Larun's work and behaviour, and hope that more people in academia who may have some influence start to care, and recognise how fucked up this is, but that's about it. For lots of...