He seems to be looking for the easy popular targets along with bashing business (big phama although I'm not sure what views he would have one...
I often think when people credit different things with helping them that they start to get a bit better and that then starts them looking for...
Would they equally have agreed with this version "An experiment with subjective outcome measures not blinded to test versus control is unreliable...
I think timing can be quite random. I can only think of one rapid response what was not published which was when Alem Matthees wrote to correct a...
I always thought is was between Wessely and Chadler at Kings and White at QMUL but I assumed that there needed to be a political compromise to say...
I believe that the version I had was obtained by a FoI. I think I got it form @Tom Kindlon but not sure. The published version came later and is...
The step test and the Borg scale were also missing from the stats plan. My belief is they justified the post hoc recovery criteria without...
Or was he given a selected set of things. We have not seen the minutes of the meeting when the stats plan was accepted and so don't know what...
I've put a searchable version of the full PACE protocol here https://www.s4me.info/docs/PACEProtocolSearchable.pdf
I'm wondering if it would be worth someone pulling together a detailed explanation for Norman Lamb to explain the issues that are being glossed...
My point was not one about harm but that the protocol wasn't good enough to give any solid results because the relied too heavily on subjective...
To me they failed with PACE because the weak protocol means there could be few benefits of taking part in the research and hence it wasn't worth...
I think they filed the right forms but were they accurate. I've posted this comment on Brian's blog One thing I've wondered about is whether the...
I suspect so I know with other government funded research they like to have dissemination plans to communicate the main ideas with a variety of...
I got the feeling that the HRA are covering themselves because the ethics committees approved stuff like the patient leaflet they then seem to go...
From the amendment list Not quite sure what this means but I wonder if it is the trick of using pilot patients in a full trial?
So they basically reflect back to their only defense PACE is ok because Cochrane say its ok.
Since PACE hasn't published all the secondary outcomes as defined in the protocol (although patients published the recovery one) the HRA don't...
Hads isn't reliable for this the questions some questions don't distinguish between fatigue and depression
I think Crawley tends to use the NICE criteria rather than Oxford.
Separate names with a comma.
