Search results

Maybe. I think their remit really is limited, and the report needs to be read in that light. which no one is doing, of course, especially the ideological brigades.

I don't get the feeling that HRA is concerned with whether REC decisions are based on the proper science. I think they're only interested in whether the appropriate procedures were followed, even if the study is garbage.

Just saw this. I need to request a correction. Anyone have an e-mail for Nigel Hawkes?

I think this is true.

Ha! I didn't mean it as an admonition! I like speculating too!

It's impossible to know. Big "long-form" narrative stories, as this appears to be, can take a very long time. It might be a last editor hadn't seen it, it might be the reporter felt they needed to do some subsequent reporting, it might be that Brexit or other news have pre-occupied everyone...

yes, I'll touch base with Bruce and find out what's up with that. thanks for the suggestion.

you're kind of the suspicious type, I gather...

I am holding out some hope for a better outcome than that. but we will have to wait and see.

well, they also got the approval date wrong--they said it was 2007

I think in any response the limits of their remit must be emphasized. Although I agree that even within their remit this analysis falls short.

what does "the supplement of the categorical outcome scores by measures of improvement" mean? what is that referring to? The post-hoc "improvement" findings?

Another circle jerk? Add: just saw @Peter Trewhitt's reference to the same

Ha! Good point.

well, I have just had a talk with the video folks at the news organization, and was told that publication was not imminent but likely to be a bit in the future. So there's more waiting.

Yes and I've referred to it more than once at this point.

this is true--although whether they WILL be ignored is the question.

More or less, yes. I suppose some cases might be borderline. Not the school absence study. You also can't use an opinion about pediatric studies to exempt adult studies. I mean, the adult study might be service evaluation on its own. But not because of a pediatric REC opinion.

Yeah I wrote about that at some point. It's all an inside job. I like how they "gave" Tom Feilden a story and then nominated him for the prize for the story they gave him. And then he gave a glowing testimonial for SMC's 10th anniversary promotional report. Very cool how they all support each other!

Well, basically yes. The problem is that to win a libel case you really need to prove damages. Since Esther's false accusation enhanced my reputation and undoubtedly helped my subsequent crowdfunding, it would be impossible to make any argument that I suffered any damages. Not that I would have...