From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Weasel words is an informal term for words that are ambiguous and not supported by facts. They are typically used to create an illusion of clear, direct communication. Weasel words are usually expressed with deliberate imprecision with the intention to mislead the listeners or readers into believing statements for which sources are not readily available. Tactics that are used include:
Examples
"A growing body of evidence..."[4] (Where is the raw data for your review?)
"People say..." (Which people? How do they know?)
"Studies show..." (what studies?)
Doctor Speedy and ME in search of medical honesty
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/339/jul02_3/b2651?view=long&pmid=1957430
ReplyDeletePublic perceptions, anxiety, and behaviour change in relation to the swine flu outbreak: cross sectional telephone survey
Is this a complete waste of taxpayers' money? How does it advance our knowledge of swine flu, which can be spread through droplets in the air? I've been using hand gel after washing my hands & have still caught swine flu - I get coughed and sneezed on when out in my wheelchair
Invest in ME: Statement regarding Forward-ME
ReplyDeleteInvest in ME
[Forward-ME] Meeting 8th July 2009
IiME were not able to attend the meeting of this group on 8th July 2009 in London. As for every other meeting we submitted our comments to the Countess of Mar and all other members of this group in advance.
1 Attendance at Meetings and Visibility of Comments
We would like to return to our previous email (submitted in an email on 12th December 2008) where we stated the following -
We understand that, as we were unable to attend the last meeting, any decisions made at the meeting would not include our vote.
However, we see no reference in the minutes of either of the meetings to show that our views, as submitted in documentary form prior to each of the meetings, have been discussed or included in the discussions.
We would like to see that our comments have been entered into the discussions. Will the minutes reflect this?
We never received any response from our email of 23rd March.
2 GOSH medical meeting on ME/CFS in September to be discussed and the subject of Lightning Process
In the next meeting the subject of the GOSH at a day long medical meeting on ME/CFS in September is to be discussed and the subject of Lightning Process.
Mary-Jane from AYME has written “I share your concerns about this (LP) being included in the meeting”
We find this strange and hypocritical.
AYME have advertised LP for its members and freely allow discussion without seemingly making any critical comment on the lack of a research base, the numerous cases where people have been made worse and the fact that the practitioners of LP are generally not registered healthcare practitioners and take no responsibility for the results.
To state that there are concerns seems to us to be hypocrisy.
One should also remember that AYME and AfME are not in a position to criticise GOSH for including behavioural therapies/businesses as most of their recent joint conference in Milton Keynes included known advocates of the behavioural causality for ME and also included an insurance company representative.
3 Questions for Esther Crawley CNRCC Children’s Services
We have the following questions for Esther Crawley.
In your CV it states that you published research showing “children with CFS/ME don’t go to school because they are unwell not anxious”. However, isn’t it true that you believe there is a condition termed Pervasive Refusal Syndrome (PRS)?
If the answer to i) is yes then what proof do you have of this, what research is there to prove this really exists?
If the answer to i) is yes then how many children who were diagnosed with ME have you believed to have PRS?
What medical tests do you perform on patients who are suspected of having ME/have ME?
Do you test for acute and/or reactivated infections?
From the minutes of the meeting it appears none of our points were discussed. IiME were informed by CoM [Countess of Mar] that the questions to Esther Crawley were not asked as they were not appropriate to the discussion.