Search results

Oh, I see I missed the cut-off time. I was going to add my name with those two changes. oh, well.

and again, I would say "government health agencies" in the US. Most agencies haven't had anything to do with it, so it's not right to say "every" government health agency has rejected it.

Hi, it's University of California, Berkeley. It's the Berkeley campus of the University of California, which has a batch of campuses around the state. There is no Berkeley University (well, there's some private online operation, I think, which is no relation).

Hi, I'm just getting up to speed this morning. A couple of points about the letter. I have been using the phrasing "no legitimate evidence" or "no convincing evidence" or some phrasing like that--there certainly is "evidence" for CBT/GET, so to say there is "no evidence" is not accurate. It's...

yes, this is what I'm wondering. Were they specifically commissioned to promote this? Or is there some other more generic arrangement? It's not really clear.

thanks for providing that data. I'd forgotten about the real-world results.

well I was just trying to provide them with a plausible out. I didn't necessarily know if it was in fact the case.

I've often wondered if in their clinics they might be defining CFS broadly and so treating a lot of people they say have CFS with CBT and GET and getting decent results, because a lot of those have idiopathic fatigue and/or undiagnosed depressive or anxiety disorders and actually benefit from...

You're not thick. The ad was sent to a GP, and then forwarded to me. I didn't want to forward the e-mail and didn't bother to cut-and-paste it in my post or letter, but then it was found on their site, as mentioned above.

Yes, I agree with this. That's why I asked the questions about sponsorship and arrangements. I got a pro forma response from an administrative person with a promise that I would get a substantive response from the appropriate person or people.

well I didn't say he was being honest!

Yeah, I also assume this is Cochrane--those reviews agree with the PACE conclusions is how I read it, so in that sense he's claiming they prove PACE was good.

Thanks!

This is true, but it's more or less the same message with which the trial was introduced to the public. And the FITNET-NHS site on the Bristol page isn't much better. So the ad very much resembles the Bristol approach to recruitment, although maybe it's a little blunter. In any event, the local...

Is this on twitter? It would be great if people could post screen-shots. I think it's probably a waste of time to respond to Sharpe at this stage of the debate. What's the point? Is someone listening to him?

That occurred to me but I didn't want to speculate. The recruitment phase on the website still has a long way to go, so it might just be in the normal course of things.

Also, self-reported school attendance is still self-reported--to measure school attendance as an objective measure you'd have to get the school records.

I've been asked about further plans for the open letter and so on, so here are some thoughts. Last week was the third time this open letter was sent to Horton and posted on Virology Blog. With this week's Times and BMJ articles, the letter has done a chunk of what I hoped it would do. (There's...

I'm planning to write an open letter to Godlee about this article and some other things. It bugs me that they don't even bother to cite the open letter, in case people want to read it.

I tried to interest Brian Deer in the issue a couple of years ago, around the time of the first-tier tribunal. He was completely uninterested. It's possible he might have changed his mind, I supposed.