Also I would argue that the MRC are not independent. They have shown themselves incapable of doing a proper assessment and instead repeat QMULs weak statements. Its not like they have investigated and come to a different conclusion they have simply not looked and hence cannot summarise and deal...
I think there is a slightly different question which is whether they got approval to drop recovery as a secondary outcome (along with the step test). I believe the consort guidelines require them to publish all secondary outcomes.
I wonder if she actually read the statement and removed it but didn't bother reading the letter to the times and just signed it. The whole thing reads like the normal propaganda put out by the PACE team and the SMC - including the appeal to its ok because others found the same and Cochrane say...
Would it follow from this that adults who get ME as children have something different from adults who get ME as adults? Also when is an adult an adult, I assume the biology doesn't have a strict legal age of adulthood?
Data won't be available to patients. We should remember that it was patients requesting and analyzing the data that exposed the spin they had put on it not academics or researchers. Also its patients that are most affected.
So the MRC are essentially keeping data within a small club and...
Its not clear. The statistical analysis plan dropped the step test and the recovery criteria as secondary outcomes but it is not the protocol. I think in the plan it says something about setting out the way that the primary analysis would be done.
If I remember correctly.
From the TSG minutes...
Its probably a way of hiding data. I would expect it will keep it out of the hands of patients and pressure seems to be applied to those in the UK who may speak out. But then wasn't the PACE data lost?
Lets not forget that the MRC went to court for QMUL to help suppress the data that showed how much the results were spun
A major element of the criticism is around the methodology that was followed in PACE and most of the other CBT and GET trials. Hence this just shows that Fiona Watt has not...
I take it as she is not interested in trying. For example, you wrote to her and it seems like she just dismissed your letter without thought and certainly not looking or trying to understand the issues. This says to me that she has an eye on the politics and lobbying rather than understanding...
From the MRC perspective the accusation is that the process was followed but failed to ensure sufficient quality in the result. That should be seen as a serious issue and as a minimum lead to a review of their process.
This isn't about understanding good experimental design this is a civil servant whose job it is to ensure high research standards giving in to lobbying and backing the unbackable. Also standing by her organizations failure to act in the past. In effect this is the MRC saying it is happy with...
There is a link here
http://www.bacch.org.uk/about/documents/SWBACCH07.12.18prog.pdf
Perhaps in her personal view she will confess to mistreating children with exercise and failing to get proper informed consent. But I suspect it is more likely that she will be telling others how to threaten...
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.