This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Sciencewatcher, I think you are right generaly about NHS in UK, but for some reason the NICE guidelines say they are just for England and Wales. I wonder why, but I guess it is some thing about Scotland and Irish differences. RetroS1mone talk 03:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see this ANI about our favorite editor for the week, Dr. Anymouse. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry i am bugging you about it, Guido is adding a tag again at Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome, i am getting tired from this. RetroS1mone talk 11:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks. Fram ( talk) 08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic remains controversial, with critics pointing out that it is not based on solid science and it's effectiveness has not been demonstrated for any medical condition with the possible exception of lower back pain. [1] [2] [3] The American Medical Association's Committee on Quackery labeled chiropractic an "unscientific cult" until they lost a lawsuit against the chiropractors in 1987 for restraint of trade.
Thanks for your comment; I followed up at Talk:Chiropractic #Literature Synthesis. Eubulides ( talk) 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comment was removed, but I read it. Posting more on that talk page is useless and feeds the drama. Something more useful could be found here (in case I haven't spammed it to you already). WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not readd any comment to any talk page. QuackGuru 04:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I left a note at ANI in regard to your bad faith. Do you believe your comment was bad faith. QuackGuru 04:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The editor who made 8 reverts was Levine2112. Each comment I made was different. You have some explaining to do. Why did you falsely accuse me of Constantly re-adding deleted comments to people's talk pages when I never did. Please see WP:HONESTY and WP:CIVIL. It is uncivil to make comments that are false. QuackGuru 07:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please stop deleting my edits to fibromyalgia. The Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a well-known medical journal, and the articles are reviewed by experts. [1]. If you care to read the article itself you'd see it reviews and discusses a few RCTs of this treatment thereby reaching the conclusion I quoted. Mathityahu ( talk) 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sciencewatcher,
Based on your experience, could you include links, diffs and discussions - live or archived - that demonstrate POV-pushing by guido on psychosomatic medicine, placed in this section of the evidence page? The clearer the better obviously. If you have time, of course. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you have nothing better to do???? I certainly do!! However highlighting the fact that Jacob de Wolff is editing medical articles that may be used as reference by the general public when he has been before the GMC for very, very serious issues is in the public interest. I have copied below the latest from Margaret Williams with regard to ME/CFS. No I don't have time for wiki nonsense, I do have a real life to live.
Will you consider the below, are you capable of no POV to use such an anal wiki acronym?
A NICE Conundrum?
Margaret Williams
30th December 2008
A NICE conundrum seems to have presented itself,
which the Judge in the Judicial Review of the NICE
Clinical Guideline on “CFS/ME” may require NICE to
explain for the benefit of straight-thinking folk who
cannot readily understand such brain-teasers.
Straight-thinking folk know that NICE is funded by
the UK Department of Health.
These straight-thinking folk also know that the NICE
Guideline on “CFS/ME” (CG53) recommended as the
primary intervention only behaviour modification,
together with incremental aerobic exercise (cognitive
behavioural therapy / CBT and graded exercise
therapy / GET) for a disorder that NICE’s own
paymaster accepts is a neurological disease, this
having been confirmed once again in Hansard by the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
of Health, Lord Darzi, on 2nd June 2008.
It seems remarkable indeed that people unfortunate
enough to be stricken with a neurological disease
should not be permitted by NICE to be adequately
investigated, but straight-thinking folk also know
that NICE claims that its recommendations for CBT
and GET in its Guideline are based on the very best
evidence-base, which must surely re-assure these
straight-thinking folk that they will be receiving the
best possible management of their life-destroying
disease.
But here’s the conundrum: NICE’s own paymaster
(i.e. the Department of Health) is on record as
stating – in writing – that it holds no evidence that
the interventions recommended by NICE in CG53
actually work in restoring the return to work (this
being the underlying purpose of the recommended
management interventions).
This was revealed when the Department of Health
was asked about the recommendations set out in the
NHS Plus National Guideline – which the Department
itself notably funded -- that was published in
October 2006, (“Occupational Aspects of the
Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A
National Guideline” in which Wessely School
members Professors Trudie Chalder, Peter White and
Michael Sharpe were instrumental), the
recommendations in that Guideline being the same
recommendations that were adopted by NICE in its
Guideline of August 2007.
Crucially, both Guidelines were based on the same
“evidence-base”: of six Wessely School studies,
three were co-authored by Trudie Chalder and one
was co-authored by Peter White. In the NHS Plus
Guideline, the Wessely School authors made inflated
claims for the efficacy of CBT/GET in returning people
with “CFS/ME” to gainful employment (“CBT and GET
have been shown to be effective in restoring the
ability to work”), but a US systematic review of the
“evidence-base” had reported that “No specific
interventions have been proved to be effective in
restoring the ability to work” (SD Ross et al: Arch
Intern Med 2004:164:1098-1107).
The key fact here is that the NHS Plus Guideline
cited the Ross systematic review as its own
evidence-base.
An inquiry was therefore made of the DoH how such
divergent conclusions could be drawn from the same
systematic review of the same publications --- one
conclusion by Ross et al and the exactly opposite
conclusion by the Wessely School. In the light of
such an obvious dichotomy, the DoH was asked a
simple and direct question: “Does the Department
agree with the statement that cognitive behavioural
therapy and graded exercise therapy have been
shown to be effective in restoring the ability to work
in those (with ME/CFS) who are currently absent from
work?”
On 6th June 2008 the written response from the DoH
was unequivocal: “The Department does not hold any
data that support this claim”.
So here we have a situation in which the Department of Health (which funds NICE and which funded the NHS Plus Guideline) is on record as stating that it has no data to support the claims made by both the NICE Guideline and the NHS Plus Guideline.
If the Department itself holds no data showing that
CBT/GET are in fact effective, where is this data?
Does it actually exist, or is it merely a contrived
“evidence-base” created by the Wessely School,
whose vested interests in claiming its efficacy cannot
be denied?
Regarding the obvious and serious conflicts of
interest of the Wessely School in relation to the NHS
Plus Guideline, on 23rd December 2008 a remarkable
revelation was made – in writing – by Dr Ira Madan,
Director of Clinical Standards, NHS Plus (who, with
Wessely and Chalder, is based at Kings College):
“The Department of Health have (sic) asked me to
investigate your concern that one of the guideline
development group members, Professor Trudie
Chalder, and the two external assessors, Professor
Michael Sharpe and Professor Peter White, had
conflicts of interest whilst involved in the production
of the guideline. I can confirm that I was aware of
the potential for competing interests that you have
stated. The roles that Professor White, Professor
Sharpe and Professor Chalder have undertaken for
the agencies and companies that you stipulate (i.e.
the medical insurance industry) were in the public
domain prior to the publication of the NHS Plus
guideline. I am content, as the Director of that
guideline, these potential competing interests did
not in any way influence the synthesis of the
evidence or the guideline recommendations”.
As straight-thinking folk will recall, the NHS Plus
Guideline states “No conflicts of interest declared”,
yet Dr Ira Madan is here acknowledging the existence
of these Wessely School conflicts of interests, but
stating that she is “content” about the situation, as
people already knew about them.
In the Wessely School world of NHS Plus, two
researchers were allowed to sit in judgment on their
own publications, with the permission of Dr Ira
Madan. They were not required to make
conflict-of-interest declarations. This is not
peer-review as the rest of the scientific world
understands it.
Notably, the same people (Chalder, Sharpe and
White) who were involved with the production of the
NHS Plus Guideline (where they declared no conflict
of interests) did declare and list very serious
conflicts of interest in the MRC PACE trial
documentation: "PDW has done voluntary and paid
consultancy work for the Departments of Health and
Work and Pensions and legal companies and a
re-insurance company. MCS has done voluntary and
paid consultancy work for government and for legal
and insurance companies. TC has done consultancy
work for insurance companies, is the author of
Coping with Chronic Fatigue published by Sheldon
Press and co-authors Overcoming Chronic Fatigue
with Mary Burgess published by Constable and
Robinson."
(
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/7/6 ).
This is remarkably different from what the
Department of Health confirmed in relation to the
NHS Plus Guideline – in writing – on 20th November
2008: “I can confirm that the guideline contributors
gave written confirmation that they had no conflicts
of interest”.
What can explain such a marked discrepancy, and
why should a statement have been published saying
that no conflicts of interest exist when serious
conflicts of interests are undoubtedly involved?
Not only do we now have written evidence that (i)
the Department of Health holds no data that the
recommendations in both the NHS Plus Guideline and
in the NICE Guideline are in any way effective in
restoring the ability of people with ME/CFS to return
to work, and (ii) that two members of the DoH
(William Scott and Dr Ira Madan) have made
statements on the same issue that diametrically
oppose each other, but we also have written
evidence -- straight from Dr Madan at the
Department of Health -- illustrating how the normal
rules of independent peer review and conflicts of
interest are regularly suspended when it comes to
the “evidence-base” for CBT/GET in people with
ME/CFS.
Consequently, as Dr Madan has stated that the
Wessely School’s conflicts of interests did not make
any material difference, she is now being requested
to explain WHY the conflicts of interest she has
acknowledged exist were not recorded as required,
since conflicts of interest should be recorded to
enable people to make up their own mind whether or
not the conflicts matter. Such an important issue is
not up to Dr Madan to decide but is –or should be --
determined by the AGREE Instrument.
Even though it is in the public interest to publicise
that there is a potentially dangerous guideline in
circulation that was engineered by Wessely School
members whose conflicts of interest in respect of the
medical insurance industry are legion (and who have
no expertise in infection or in inflammation or in
immunology that underpin ME/CFS), the Judge will
not be considering the issues surrounding the NHS
Plus Guideline
It is, however, hoped that the Judge will require the
particular conundrum pertaining to NICE to be
explained so that straight-thinking folk can
understand it, namely, why NICE recommended
interventions for “CFS/ME” for which its own
paymaster (the Department of Health) has stated
that there is no supportive data. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.108.54.47 (
talk) 09:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Great job! You just blasted out a section with a ton of references. Now all those lousy fibromites will be placed on these meds and have all the wonderful side effects you rubbed out any evidence for. Score one for the Pharmaceutical industry! If you're not being paid by Eli Lilly, well...you're working for free.
Just so you know, the idea that there are no systematic reviews of the use of SSRIs in fibromyalgia is just plain wrong. You appear to have a fondness for PubMed. I suggest you key in Arnold LM [au] fibromyalgia with Review as you limiting factor and see where it takes you. 71.191.7.3 ( talk) 21:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi SW, I've a question for ye. On Talk:Past_life_regression#Reliable_sources an anon posted a comment that The Skeptic's Dictionary should be qualified because it's not neutral. Sources don't have to be neutral, that I'm sure of, but I'm looking for where I can point yon anon to. Any suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sciencewatcher some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments from outside are good. Here is the guidelines for an RfC when you are interested at that [2]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You asked, "Reverted to revision 262297812 by RetroS1mone; how come anon can keep doing this when page is still semi-protected?. (TW))" --> protection expired at 15:23 on 4 January 2009. The template is still in place (or will be until I remove it), but the article isn't actually protected. - Nunh-huh 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am not quite sure how this is a personal attack, I added information which I saw as important and relative and it was immediately removed. This has happened several times and has always been reverted. If any offence was caused by my comments then I do apologize. But I thought I was allowed to make edits and amend things I see fit. Who is to say whose viewpoint is correct and whose is not? Anyway once again my sincere apologies for any harm caused. 87.112.79.76
I certainly have never put any personal attacks on you or anyone else on this site. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I added some information I thought was relevant and it was immediately removed and I reverted it back again. how does this constitute a personal attack. Best Wishes 87.112.79.76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.79.76 ( talk) 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you but I can unequivocally state that this particular piece of text has absolutely nothing to do with me whatsoever.
Best Regards.. Angela.. 87.112.79.76 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.114.143.8 (
talk) 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, perhaps it's your 8 years of research that's the reason behind your views being more pro-psychological than mine. Back when you first started your research, that would've been a more predominant view. My research started just over two years ago, I think...about a year after symptoms first started that nobody could explain. By then, the psychological view was in decline, particularly amongst Canadian doctors, and being debated much more heavily by UK doctors. The US still believed that it was psychological by that point, though I'm seeing a substantial shift there in recent literature as well. My impression is that most European doctors have always considered it physical, but I'm content to be disproven on that...I didn't exactly do a study on each country's doctors' viewpoints. :D -- Rob ( talk) 10:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a word missing in my comment which changes the meaning somewhat. Sorry about that (ie. I do "not" agree with the new editor with ownership issues) Verbal chat 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Hi Sciencewatcher, I think you are right generaly about NHS in UK, but for some reason the NICE guidelines say they are just for England and Wales. I wonder why, but I guess it is some thing about Scotland and Irish differences. RetroS1mone talk 03:01, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
Please see this ANI about our favorite editor for the week, Dr. Anymouse. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 16:31, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry i am bugging you about it, Guido is adding a tag again at Alternative names for chronic fatigue syndrome, i am getting tired from this. RetroS1mone talk 11:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Please refrain from making personal attacks. Fram ( talk) 08:45, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
Chiropractic remains controversial, with critics pointing out that it is not based on solid science and it's effectiveness has not been demonstrated for any medical condition with the possible exception of lower back pain. [1] [2] [3] The American Medical Association's Committee on Quackery labeled chiropractic an "unscientific cult" until they lost a lawsuit against the chiropractors in 1987 for restraint of trade.
Thanks for your comment; I followed up at Talk:Chiropractic #Literature Synthesis. Eubulides ( talk) 18:12, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Your comment was removed, but I read it. Posting more on that talk page is useless and feeds the drama. Something more useful could be found here (in case I haven't spammed it to you already). WLU (talk) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
I did not readd any comment to any talk page. QuackGuru 04:08, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
I left a note at ANI in regard to your bad faith. Do you believe your comment was bad faith. QuackGuru 04:15, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
The editor who made 8 reverts was Levine2112. Each comment I made was different. You have some explaining to do. Why did you falsely accuse me of Constantly re-adding deleted comments to people's talk pages when I never did. Please see WP:HONESTY and WP:CIVIL. It is uncivil to make comments that are false. QuackGuru 07:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Hello. Please stop deleting my edits to fibromyalgia. The Journal of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome is a well-known medical journal, and the articles are reviewed by experts. [1]. If you care to read the article itself you'd see it reviews and discusses a few RCTs of this treatment thereby reaching the conclusion I quoted. Mathityahu ( talk) 16:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi Sciencewatcher,
Based on your experience, could you include links, diffs and discussions - live or archived - that demonstrate POV-pushing by guido on psychosomatic medicine, placed in this section of the evidence page? The clearer the better obviously. If you have time, of course. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:09, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Required notice to all parties involved with the Guido den Broeder ban/block/discussion: I have appealed the ban on his behalf at WP:RFAR. Cosmic Latte ( talk) 19:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Do you have nothing better to do???? I certainly do!! However highlighting the fact that Jacob de Wolff is editing medical articles that may be used as reference by the general public when he has been before the GMC for very, very serious issues is in the public interest. I have copied below the latest from Margaret Williams with regard to ME/CFS. No I don't have time for wiki nonsense, I do have a real life to live.
Will you consider the below, are you capable of no POV to use such an anal wiki acronym?
A NICE Conundrum?
Margaret Williams
30th December 2008
A NICE conundrum seems to have presented itself,
which the Judge in the Judicial Review of the NICE
Clinical Guideline on “CFS/ME” may require NICE to
explain for the benefit of straight-thinking folk who
cannot readily understand such brain-teasers.
Straight-thinking folk know that NICE is funded by
the UK Department of Health.
These straight-thinking folk also know that the NICE
Guideline on “CFS/ME” (CG53) recommended as the
primary intervention only behaviour modification,
together with incremental aerobic exercise (cognitive
behavioural therapy / CBT and graded exercise
therapy / GET) for a disorder that NICE’s own
paymaster accepts is a neurological disease, this
having been confirmed once again in Hansard by the
Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
of Health, Lord Darzi, on 2nd June 2008.
It seems remarkable indeed that people unfortunate
enough to be stricken with a neurological disease
should not be permitted by NICE to be adequately
investigated, but straight-thinking folk also know
that NICE claims that its recommendations for CBT
and GET in its Guideline are based on the very best
evidence-base, which must surely re-assure these
straight-thinking folk that they will be receiving the
best possible management of their life-destroying
disease.
But here’s the conundrum: NICE’s own paymaster
(i.e. the Department of Health) is on record as
stating – in writing – that it holds no evidence that
the interventions recommended by NICE in CG53
actually work in restoring the return to work (this
being the underlying purpose of the recommended
management interventions).
This was revealed when the Department of Health
was asked about the recommendations set out in the
NHS Plus National Guideline – which the Department
itself notably funded -- that was published in
October 2006, (“Occupational Aspects of the
Management of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome: A
National Guideline” in which Wessely School
members Professors Trudie Chalder, Peter White and
Michael Sharpe were instrumental), the
recommendations in that Guideline being the same
recommendations that were adopted by NICE in its
Guideline of August 2007.
Crucially, both Guidelines were based on the same
“evidence-base”: of six Wessely School studies,
three were co-authored by Trudie Chalder and one
was co-authored by Peter White. In the NHS Plus
Guideline, the Wessely School authors made inflated
claims for the efficacy of CBT/GET in returning people
with “CFS/ME” to gainful employment (“CBT and GET
have been shown to be effective in restoring the
ability to work”), but a US systematic review of the
“evidence-base” had reported that “No specific
interventions have been proved to be effective in
restoring the ability to work” (SD Ross et al: Arch
Intern Med 2004:164:1098-1107).
The key fact here is that the NHS Plus Guideline
cited the Ross systematic review as its own
evidence-base.
An inquiry was therefore made of the DoH how such
divergent conclusions could be drawn from the same
systematic review of the same publications --- one
conclusion by Ross et al and the exactly opposite
conclusion by the Wessely School. In the light of
such an obvious dichotomy, the DoH was asked a
simple and direct question: “Does the Department
agree with the statement that cognitive behavioural
therapy and graded exercise therapy have been
shown to be effective in restoring the ability to work
in those (with ME/CFS) who are currently absent from
work?”
On 6th June 2008 the written response from the DoH
was unequivocal: “The Department does not hold any
data that support this claim”.
So here we have a situation in which the Department of Health (which funds NICE and which funded the NHS Plus Guideline) is on record as stating that it has no data to support the claims made by both the NICE Guideline and the NHS Plus Guideline.
If the Department itself holds no data showing that
CBT/GET are in fact effective, where is this data?
Does it actually exist, or is it merely a contrived
“evidence-base” created by the Wessely School,
whose vested interests in claiming its efficacy cannot
be denied?
Regarding the obvious and serious conflicts of
interest of the Wessely School in relation to the NHS
Plus Guideline, on 23rd December 2008 a remarkable
revelation was made – in writing – by Dr Ira Madan,
Director of Clinical Standards, NHS Plus (who, with
Wessely and Chalder, is based at Kings College):
“The Department of Health have (sic) asked me to
investigate your concern that one of the guideline
development group members, Professor Trudie
Chalder, and the two external assessors, Professor
Michael Sharpe and Professor Peter White, had
conflicts of interest whilst involved in the production
of the guideline. I can confirm that I was aware of
the potential for competing interests that you have
stated. The roles that Professor White, Professor
Sharpe and Professor Chalder have undertaken for
the agencies and companies that you stipulate (i.e.
the medical insurance industry) were in the public
domain prior to the publication of the NHS Plus
guideline. I am content, as the Director of that
guideline, these potential competing interests did
not in any way influence the synthesis of the
evidence or the guideline recommendations”.
As straight-thinking folk will recall, the NHS Plus
Guideline states “No conflicts of interest declared”,
yet Dr Ira Madan is here acknowledging the existence
of these Wessely School conflicts of interests, but
stating that she is “content” about the situation, as
people already knew about them.
In the Wessely School world of NHS Plus, two
researchers were allowed to sit in judgment on their
own publications, with the permission of Dr Ira
Madan. They were not required to make
conflict-of-interest declarations. This is not
peer-review as the rest of the scientific world
understands it.
Notably, the same people (Chalder, Sharpe and
White) who were involved with the production of the
NHS Plus Guideline (where they declared no conflict
of interests) did declare and list very serious
conflicts of interest in the MRC PACE trial
documentation: "PDW has done voluntary and paid
consultancy work for the Departments of Health and
Work and Pensions and legal companies and a
re-insurance company. MCS has done voluntary and
paid consultancy work for government and for legal
and insurance companies. TC has done consultancy
work for insurance companies, is the author of
Coping with Chronic Fatigue published by Sheldon
Press and co-authors Overcoming Chronic Fatigue
with Mary Burgess published by Constable and
Robinson."
(
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2377/7/6 ).
This is remarkably different from what the
Department of Health confirmed in relation to the
NHS Plus Guideline – in writing – on 20th November
2008: “I can confirm that the guideline contributors
gave written confirmation that they had no conflicts
of interest”.
What can explain such a marked discrepancy, and
why should a statement have been published saying
that no conflicts of interest exist when serious
conflicts of interests are undoubtedly involved?
Not only do we now have written evidence that (i)
the Department of Health holds no data that the
recommendations in both the NHS Plus Guideline and
in the NICE Guideline are in any way effective in
restoring the ability of people with ME/CFS to return
to work, and (ii) that two members of the DoH
(William Scott and Dr Ira Madan) have made
statements on the same issue that diametrically
oppose each other, but we also have written
evidence -- straight from Dr Madan at the
Department of Health -- illustrating how the normal
rules of independent peer review and conflicts of
interest are regularly suspended when it comes to
the “evidence-base” for CBT/GET in people with
ME/CFS.
Consequently, as Dr Madan has stated that the
Wessely School’s conflicts of interests did not make
any material difference, she is now being requested
to explain WHY the conflicts of interest she has
acknowledged exist were not recorded as required,
since conflicts of interest should be recorded to
enable people to make up their own mind whether or
not the conflicts matter. Such an important issue is
not up to Dr Madan to decide but is –or should be --
determined by the AGREE Instrument.
Even though it is in the public interest to publicise
that there is a potentially dangerous guideline in
circulation that was engineered by Wessely School
members whose conflicts of interest in respect of the
medical insurance industry are legion (and who have
no expertise in infection or in inflammation or in
immunology that underpin ME/CFS), the Judge will
not be considering the issues surrounding the NHS
Plus Guideline
It is, however, hoped that the Judge will require the
particular conundrum pertaining to NICE to be
explained so that straight-thinking folk can
understand it, namely, why NICE recommended
interventions for “CFS/ME” for which its own
paymaster (the Department of Health) has stated
that there is no supportive data. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
88.108.54.47 (
talk) 09:52, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Great job! You just blasted out a section with a ton of references. Now all those lousy fibromites will be placed on these meds and have all the wonderful side effects you rubbed out any evidence for. Score one for the Pharmaceutical industry! If you're not being paid by Eli Lilly, well...you're working for free.
Just so you know, the idea that there are no systematic reviews of the use of SSRIs in fibromyalgia is just plain wrong. You appear to have a fondness for PubMed. I suggest you key in Arnold LM [au] fibromyalgia with Review as you limiting factor and see where it takes you. 71.191.7.3 ( talk) 21:42, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
Hi SW, I've a question for ye. On Talk:Past_life_regression#Reliable_sources an anon posted a comment that The Skeptic's Dictionary should be qualified because it's not neutral. Sources don't have to be neutral, that I'm sure of, but I'm looking for where I can point yon anon to. Any suggestions? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 13:50, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi Sciencewatcher some editors at Chronic fatigue syndrome have talked about banning me. That is a later step in a dispute process, but it can start with a request for comment about me and i think comments from outside are good. Here is the guidelines for an RfC when you are interested at that [2]. Thx, RetroS1mone talk 13:55, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
You asked, "Reverted to revision 262297812 by RetroS1mone; how come anon can keep doing this when page is still semi-protected?. (TW))" --> protection expired at 15:23 on 4 January 2009. The template is still in place (or will be until I remove it), but the article isn't actually protected. - Nunh-huh 16:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am not quite sure how this is a personal attack, I added information which I saw as important and relative and it was immediately removed. This has happened several times and has always been reverted. If any offence was caused by my comments then I do apologize. But I thought I was allowed to make edits and amend things I see fit. Who is to say whose viewpoint is correct and whose is not? Anyway once again my sincere apologies for any harm caused. 87.112.79.76
I certainly have never put any personal attacks on you or anyone else on this site. I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I added some information I thought was relevant and it was immediately removed and I reverted it back again. how does this constitute a personal attack. Best Wishes 87.112.79.76 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.79.76 ( talk) 17:48, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
I hate to disappoint you but I can unequivocally state that this particular piece of text has absolutely nothing to do with me whatsoever.
Best Regards.. Angela.. 87.112.79.76 —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
87.114.143.8 (
talk) 08:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, perhaps it's your 8 years of research that's the reason behind your views being more pro-psychological than mine. Back when you first started your research, that would've been a more predominant view. My research started just over two years ago, I think...about a year after symptoms first started that nobody could explain. By then, the psychological view was in decline, particularly amongst Canadian doctors, and being debated much more heavily by UK doctors. The US still believed that it was psychological by that point, though I'm seeing a substantial shift there in recent literature as well. My impression is that most European doctors have always considered it physical, but I'm content to be disproven on that...I didn't exactly do a study on each country's doctors' viewpoints. :D -- Rob ( talk) 10:26, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
There was a word missing in my comment which changes the meaning somewhat. Sorry about that (ie. I do "not" agree with the new editor with ownership issues) Verbal chat 18:15, 7 January 2009 (UTC)