Search results

He thinks he's doing a good job if he provokes and gets a reaction. That's his only criteria.

I don't even feel the need to read this. Which shows how far we've come - 3 years ago I'd have gone through it with a toothcomb and written a furious rant about it. Now I can't even be arsed raising my left eyebrow.

Hopefully there will be bodyguards on duty in case any BPS activists are planning to turn up and politely disagree. The problem for Wessely, Sharpe & Co isn't that researchers are leaving the field, but the opposite. An increasing number of new scientists and researchers are entering the field...

@Trish's comment in top position now when ordered by "most recommended" :)

It's displayed now. Should be upvoted to top position I say.

Buggered if I'm reading it, but I'd be happy to make a blind bet that it's another gift from Michael Sharpe. Not many of the other PACE authors put their name to it.

Yes, including from Michael Sharpe (e.g. his letter to Carol Monaghan accusing her of conduct unbecoming of an M.P.). Perhaps in the interests of balance the reuters journalist could do an article on the abusive letter-writing campaigns of Michael Sharpe and colleagues. It's not like there's a...

Don't know if it's true or not, just passing on what sky news was saying just after the vote.

Steve Brine just lost his job in the Brexit chaos according to Sky News.

I find this piece very heartening. "Scientists" for the purporses of this article means "BPS activists", so it is wonderful to hear that that they are finding it hard to recruit new members and that their number of research projects is falling dramatically. The writer ignores all the real...

The title of this thread is: If members want to examine whether a given statistic is true or not, what's the problem? The title of this thread is whether the statistic is true or not. It may be entrenched, but so what? It may be useful for the ME cause, but again, so what? Some members may...

The proof of that are the ME sufferers who also have mental health issues and have no problem accepting that, talking about it openly with no sense of stigma at all, and no objection to their therapy or medication.

He probably persisted up to the point at which he got annoyed.

So it looks like in 2017 their income was 681,000, of which 418,000 went on salaries. In 2018 their income was 1,200,000, of which 600,000 went on salaries. Logically speaking, if the trustees plus CEO get 101,000, and the trustees don't get a penny: That leaves the CEO on 100 grand?

I don't think he really understands persistence.

Is a wildly over-optimistic interpretation possible? For example someone is ensuring that at a later date the authors cannot complain about not having been given every possible chance?

Someone had this as their avatar at the last place, I always liked it:

Couldn't they hire a faith healer or homeopath for the sham control? That way the therapist would bring the necessary belief commitment. You could match them with "open minded" patients who thought it might work.