Search results

WTF? Seriously? o_O

And this is what honest mistakes and corrections look like. Over to you, PACEophiles...

...the 'F' word.

Academics have the right to put forward new and controversial ideas. In fact that is almost their job description (on the research side, at least). We should always defend that right. They do not have the right to demand that those ideas get implemented in the real world, on real living humans...

Agree. Unfortunately fully catching Wessely out requires both solid familiarity with the background of it all, and a massive collation and cross-referencing job.

Yet again: Activity levels are definitely amenable to a range of clear objective measures, and there is absolutely no excuse for not using such measures and giving them (at least) equal status to subjective measures. No ifs or buts about that. Not up for negotiation. One of the most...

I didn't mean you specifically, just the general you, as in: one should be careful what one wishes for...

Two men say they're Jesus One of them must be wrong

Fame/infamy. It's a fine line. Be careful what you wish for.

Yep. The bright disinfecting sunlight of direct attention.

Yeah, that was a glaring absence of the most important part of the harassment/threats story. Its value is in the relative advance. This kind of media story would have been almost unthinkable a couple of years ago (with honourable exceptions). But agree that there is still a long way to go...

:D This, to the power of a gazillion. One of the most important responsibilities and obligations of all those with professional expertise of any kind (from tradespeople to senior professors) is to make sure their fellow professionals don't stray from the path, and call them out when they do...

After 30+ years of dealing with this, there is no doubt that there is a firm ceiling effect, and the price for exceeding it is harsh indeed, sometimes disasterous (oh no, I am catastrophising! :jawdrop: What would Phil Parker say? :rolleyes: ). Nothing I have done or tried makes any difference...

Damn right, @large donner. Virtually every institution and process responsible for quality control in this area has failed.

A pretty fair article. I don't envy the author's task. How the feck did this get past peer-review? If this alone isn't a ear-splitting warning bell to the medical scientific community, then what the hell is? Well that is objectively testable. So did they test it? Nope. Interesting how closely...

Knock on their window and say 'covfefe'. See what happens. :bag:

There will come a time when we can even take our clothes off when we dance. And it will be ugly.

Yes, we really have become delicate little flowers, haven't we. Must be all this nutrition and healthcare. :rolleyes:

There's a paper in that, @Forbin.

PACE is a case study in how to systematically maximise known methodological biases and confounders, and arbitrarily declare them to be legitimate therapeutic benefits.