Search results

This. The aim is not to change the minds of those already lost to this nonsense. Forget them, they are a lost cause. The aim is to get enough of the rest of clinical and research medicine, and the bean counters, to understand what is happening here, and the consequences for both patients and...

Circular definitional unfalsifiable 'diagnoses'. The perfect system for the lazy, incompetent, fraudulent, and downright psychopathic. :grumpy:

I wish I had the luxury of being able to simply redefine my way out of my health problems.

Thanks to all the letter writers. :thumbup: One small typo in Goldin's letter. Godlee is mispelt as Goldee.

Researcher: 'Oh, no way, I always wear my Equipoise Socks™ at work.' Or late reporting, or misreporting/misinterpreting. He is just trying to be seen as one of the woke warriors for science. 'See, I can't possibly be trying cover anything up coz I promote criticism of my own profession.'

Good discussion. Once again, much thanks to Prof. Racaniello for his solid support for @dave30th and his work.

Francis Collins has been explicitly saying this to us for some years. In my experience it is more often that person's boss, who is not a technician and demands the machine does things it cannot do (or do reliably).

This. Governments and corporations love this shit. Gives them a pseudo-scientific, pseudo-compassionate excuse to do nothing, and worse.

Excellent blog. In other words, they have arranged things so their claim is immune to falsification. Which is basically the definition of pseudo-science.

How original, and free from spin. NOT. The failure to acknowledge that critics include many established senior researchers and clinicians can be called straight fraud at this point in the history of it all. There are no excuses left.

Including financial costs. LP ain't cheap. Getting pretty low when your business model is fleecing sick desperate people.

The fact that it passed peer review without including a detailed description of the methodology is particularly disturbing. The reviewers and editors need a serious kick up the arse over that alone.

I got sick in my early 20s. I am now in my mid-50s. I have been sick (with no remissions) for much longer than I was healthy. How am I supposed to remember accurately what it felt like to be healthy?

That link contains a Facebook referral. The clean link is

Missing data is missing data. Having documented reasons for it being missing is nice, but it is still missing.

The frequency of changes in terminology is a good inverse index of how poorly the subject is understood. The more often it changes, the less likely it is to be well characterised and understood. How many times has femoral fracture changed its name?

And they wonder why we question their integrity. This is Clinical Trials 101 they are repeatedly failing. There are no excuses.

I think the story is they started by fooling themselves, and when it became obvious, they switched to trying to fool others.

Or to wherever the ball randomly ended up after they kicked it with blindfolds on.

It gets better: PACE was originally described as 'controlled' in the PACE protocol paper (2007), but not in the main paper (2011). Which means that either the PACE authors decided not to claim controlled status for the final publication, or it was denied to them by the reviewers or journal...