Search results

This is the problem: PACE trial stories [Yes, there is nothing there]

I took that to indicate bias rather than harm per se. And one account is not enough while they're all like "didn't see it. didn't happen."

Apart from Tom's studies (below) [which document indirect harm], do we still not have any direct accounts of harm from the trial itself that we can point to?

Just to clarify, by "underlying condition", I meant the condition/illness of ME/CFS, and not their made-up perpetuating factors, and not the causes. They did have proxys for the condition, albeit not very good ones. They had employment status, employment days lost; they had the step test, the...

But they can't even properly measure what they *did* make important -> fatigue

MS can say what he likes. It doesn't change the fact that their treatments simply tell pts how to complete questionnaires the way they want them to (ie, to demonstrate the desired "effect").

He said "they" couldn't measure it. They chose not to. They ditched all the tools that would have allowed them to measure it because those tools didn't confirm their theories about it, not because those tools didn't measure the condition. And if they are going to try to explain that it's a...

Gotcha?

'Deaf dialogue'? He's the one not answering the questions! I'll get working on my list of all the questions that have not been answered.

He's really not paying attention, is he. Penny has previously tried to give him the benefit of the doubt over his email to Carol.

Already done that. He won't answer me. Wonder why not.

I'm not laughing...

Damn. I thought he'd stopped.

He names himself in the review.

It's "hilarious" how these journals court controversy, and then act all coy when real debate starts to happen. [by "hilarious", I of course mean "utterly infuriating"]

And what was their response?

Yeah - I saw that about a month ago... https://www.s4me.info/threads/a-general-thread-on-the-pace-trial.807/page-8#post-74052

I think that warrants a formal complaint to COPE!

?

That's what *should* happen, but knowing The Lancet's entrenched position, it won't, unfortunately. btw - did @Carolyn Wilshire et al submit their paper to The Lancet in the first instance? TL guidelines do say that you can request that certain people don't review your paper. Asking for...