Search results

I think the "news" here is this: The science reporting is terrible! They could at least have provided a more correct version of what the senator said rather than simply repeating him: "For me, the biggest take away from this breakthrough is that it is neither a physiological or a...

There would have been reams and reams of paper data collected too, and audio records of all therapy sessions etc. And it would have been anonymised too. Probably quite an exercise to make sure they hadn't expunged the wrong participant. But it's a condition of consent - so they should have had...

Thanks for doing that. I feared as much. :(

Thanks, @Esther12 , that's the one I remembered. Seems a little different from the account given to @dave30th though.

There's more info at the link, but in summary, being in perpetual conflict benefits no-one.

I found Hannah Fry's programme on game theory (BBC4 yesterday) very interesting in that regard...

I don't think that's fair. They've always disputed the PACE trial's findings.

I seem to remember Peter White talking about it as being a huge hassle - but I can't remember where - was it early during the FOIA tribunal? (I've checked the final docs, but it isn't mentioned there.)

Action for ME have now issued a statement: https://www.actionforme.org.uk/news/pace-trial-and-behavioural-treatments-for-me/ [Thread: https://www.s4me.info/threads/action-for-me-the-pace-trial-and-behavioural-treatments-for-m-e-position-statement.5532/]

They can't say 641 because one person withdrew consent and insisted their data was destroyed.

But they can no longer claim that the data is inaccessible.

But interesting that Watt's final paragraph in The Times does not appear in the "extended" version: "Chronic fatigue syndrome/ME remains a priority for the Medical Research Council (MRC), and it is important that researchers are not discouraged from working on the disease because of concerns...

"over 600 participants"

From the full statement: "We are currently supporting the PACE trial investigators to anonymise the study data from over 600 participants so that it can be made available to other researchers in a way that protects the privacy of those patients who took part. The MRC has recently started...

I was cautious, mainly because of what he said about "patient activists" in this lecture he gave a few years ago (2014): Bradford Hill Lecture: Stuart Pocock “Controversies, calamities and celebrations in clinical trials research” [ETA: I've watched it again - I must have been in a very...

That looks familiar: "Blaming symptoms on a viral infection conveys certain advantages, irrespective of its validity. It is simple, frequent and easily accepted. ... It is also beneficial to self-esteem by protecting the individual from guilt and blame." - Wessely (1991) [link to more complete...

Sorry - I misunderstood. I mistook that as a slur on statisticians! You said: "Statisticians seem to be quite good at missing problems with PACE methodology because they are as much psychological as mathematical..." I've italicised the subject of the sentence: "Statisticians are good at...

??????????

@Jonathan Edwards - Do you know if Stuart Pocock (Prof of Medical Statistics and Clinical Trials guru at LSHTM) has been asked to look at this?

So he answers a question about "advanced decisions (to refuse treatment)" (a legal instrument) with an answer about himself. Advanced directives (nice quotes from the article editor) are different - they are basically 'living wills' and have no legal standing. However, there is an argument that...