Discussion in 'Psychosomatic news - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Cheshire, Dec 13, 2017.
David knows the meaning of due diligence.
One trusts that EC will be duly grateful for DT's work. Did she not say in one of the interviews that the outcome of the trial was not entirely expected?
Now she will know why.
How is she even still allowed to practice "science"?
As its a long post of his, David provides a short(er) version
And nice to see that acknowledges that patients have raised the issues behind this trial.
It's why software has to be tested by independent test engineers, with their own test specifications. Even the most diligent and professional software developers will unconsciously test their software through execution paths they best favour as necessary, and may miss something a tester won't. EC's approach seems equivalent to a software developer deliberately avoiding certain tests ... "because there might be bugs in that area".
Yep, not just angelic, but "propheteering" as well.
Quite so. He's doing some excellent peer reviews of her work.
And forum manual writers too
Another good piece by David Tuller.
Nice bit of promotion for the forum, so if he sees it, thanks. Skillfully done.
Why couldn’t the data for students who went through their GCSE’s and onto A Levels have just been separated into two measures for attendance? It would still be interesting if they could manage 2-3 hours per day, as many patients would like to reach that level. (For non-U.K members - after 16 years of age, at the end of the school year, students move from GCSE to A Levels. It’s like moving from general education to a more narrow set of subjects, hence the less time required to attend.)
Scientific Study Proposal:
I think we should have a study of how he, Jonathan Edwards and Bruce Levin maintain a good quantity of hair on their heads after researching all this stuff.
Very well done
The long version is very long, i already fried my brain on the short one so in future i'll take a stab at the long version
Oh and something to point out, ethical scientists typically argue things based on the merits because we are right, but the other side will play dirty. I don't propose stooping to their level but i would play hardball, its unethical to use quackery on MS patients so how is it more ethical to force it upon ME/CFS patients?
Aside: I hadn't seen "goulash" used in this way before so I googled "goulash meaning". Didn't like the second entry I saw [urban dictionary]!
I'm not sure its true that kids only have to attend school 2-3 hours a day for A levels as opposed to 6 for GCSEs. It may depend on the Sixth form they attend though.
From the kids in my extended family who are doing A levels they attend for the whole school day. On top of that they seem to have alot of work to do outside of school hours for A levels.
Shouldn't that be "principal" rather than "principle"? I do hope the mistake was E.C.'s rather than David Tuller's!
This excuse only makes sense if schools only keep records for the percentage of expected hours attended and not the actual hours attended. Does anyone know if schools do not keep that data?
Thanks once again to Tuller for all his work. That was epic.
When reading that I really felt like this study has the hallmarks of the sort of 'simple' junk-science that should attract wider attention from people who don't care about CFS?
Despite it's length, there were still bits that were so dense I wondered if people new to the topic would be able to follow it? What do others think? It shouldn't be a problem for people used to reading/writing about science though, and I suppose that's the key audience to try to influence. I love how Tuller works to include all the provisos and details that prevent PACE/Crawley etc claiming he's misrepresenting their work, but it does make it difficult to create an easy to read story. (Actually - PACE and Crawley still do claim he's misrepresenting their work... that's so unfair!)
Hey - it looks like it was me who mentioned that! My bulltwaddle-detection was going off like crazy over SMILE (apologies in advance for stealing credit from someone else, as I fear I am). Also seems @Valentijn was the one who pointed out that they failed to mention checking school records for assessing attendance levels. Concerns about bulltwaddle were what led to the move to another forum!
Yup, she was really surprised that when she switched outcomes half-way through she could turn a null result into a positive one with an excited press release... she'll love that Tuller's helped explain this confusing state of affairs to everyone!
Yes, I think so too!
I would have thought that attendance would be registered at least twice a day (mandatory according to Government Rules), just like in the stone ages when we attended.
It's probably all done electronically now. At college for my A Levels and equivalent each class was registered as well. That would mean that each teacher would have a way of knowing who is 'missing' or late.
Here's the context ...
This is not very coherent. Am still not expressing myself clearly after anaesthesia but I wanted to comment below.
Have scanned David's article and I am even more concerned that MEA continues its link with Esther Crawley via CMRC. Have commented on MEA fb page on this if anyone cares to 'like' or comment.
Felt very vulnerable in hospital where exercise stress tests were being proposed, and GET still hangs round as treatment of choice for ME. I managed to get out without it but it's tricky.
@Barry - I think principle is ok.
Thanks all for your good wishes prior to admission.
Separate names with a comma.