Search results

I thought I saw one version that indicated it had been reviewed in 2018. But now I can't find that version. Did anyone else see that, or did I make it up? Added: Found it. Here is the version that indicates it was reviewed in April 2018: http://elearning.rcgp.org.uk/course/info.php?id=93 And...

and it was reviewed in April 2018--after publication of Wilshire et al that busts all the PACE findings.

Wow!

wouldn't that be nice if more UK journalists started to do their jobs properly!!

Darren Jones, the bespectacled young man from the Bristol area. He spoke yesterday during the debate.

What was this? I don't remember from last time.

No. Yes.

True but she cited Cochrane as her main defense and hid behind the reviews--before Cochrane made it clear that the exercise review should be retracted, rejected the revision, and withdrew the IPD protocol. So things are in some state of flux.

I heard his little spiel. the idea that NICE is treated as just advisory is of course ridiculous

Let's see what the Reuters story tomorrow looks like, if there is one.

I hope Sir Simon is watching. And Sharpe, White, et al.

That briefing gives a really misleading view of things imo. Who prepares this kind of briefing?

Hi, Clare--thanks for the response. But the document itself seems to make assumptions that many or most patients need positive support to "encourage" them to keep working and "build up their baseline"-- in fact, the notion and possibility of "building up their baseline" is repeated throughout...

Hi, Clare @Action for M.E.--I agree completely with these points from Trish. And I'd like to know what follow-up there has been. Does anyone have any idea how this tool-kit has actually been used by DWP? It is very easy to imagine this notion of encouragement fitting into the preconceived ideas...

Oh, right--what happened was that a science blogger--not Vincent--posted the piece in a list of "10 free stories that should be paid for," or something like that, and urged people to send $$. So I got $24

I don't mind. I've asked people to chip in a fair amount of money to Berkeley to support me. It seems reasonable that they might want to know how payment works or should work for journalism under ordinary circumstances. It's not quite directly relevant, because I'm determining what I need to...

Hi, Roy--I didn't get paid anything for that piece. It was 10,000 words and took many months of work. I had no expectation that anyone would be interested in publishing it or paying me. I knew Vincent and asked him about posting it there. He read it and liked it, and so that's how that happened...

Given the provenance of this award and its link with Professor Aylward, perhaps it might have made more sense for Action For ME to reject it on that basis, with a full explanation. Touting this award nomination on its site certainly suggests that the organization was proud of this achievement...

yes, it's a typo. thanks for pointing it out.

Ha! Fixed. Andy, I think I need to hire you as my copy-editor!! I do come from the country of "alternative facts," but not "alternative spelling."