Search results

I'd love to know who the real fons et origo of that notion is though. Probably not Sharpe, but you never know...

:laugh:

Indeedy. So where did Horton get the notion that it was more than that?

He's still going...

Why won't Prof Sharpe answer my question? He keeps saying, "It's just a trial, it's just a trial"

Oi! Less of the name calling!

They [PACE PIs] seem to have a *big* problem with that.

He is playing games: He simply sees it as "work". When he does it, it's "open-minded science", but when anyone else does it, it's not.

And so it goes on: He is correct. There is a difference between a perceived conflict of interest and an actual conflict of interest. We will always perceive him to have a conflict of interest, because we know he is not acting in the interest of the trial participants or PwME in general. But...

I am going to put something together on the objective measures at some point, but it's taking a while to get my brain in gear. In the meantime, here are all the mentions of The Lancet in the TMG/TSC minutes:

I'm really not disagreeing with you; I'm trying to understand it from his position, and why he should be so casual about not declaring those things. He simply does not see a conflict. He's already made it clear that he didn't care what the outcome of the trial was - it was "just a trial" - but...

Every researcher stands to gain financially from continued employment as a researcher - that's sort of how it works. Grant funding depends on how many papers you publish. Science is a human system with human flaws.

Sharpe is only doing what he is obliged to do, and he is correct in that (whether that's acceptable or not is another thing). As far as he is concerned, he has not been paid to promote a view that he himself does not hold or goes against the general thrust of his research. Given his views, it...

@Evergreen OKies. I've done a quick and dirty data summary... Graph: Data summary: Not sure it tells us very much, but intriguing nonetheless!

I still don't think there is any value in looking at "change in CFQ score" because CFQ already measures change. But if you take what they've done, then their definition of improvement (decrease of 2 pts or more) is well and truly bust for the reasons you outline. Because CFQ is such a useless...

#Power2thePwME

How tall are your ceilings???? :jawdrop:

3 flights of stairs. THREE! I wouldn't do that! And I'm ... errr.... not really very healthy!

You know what? I really wouldn't, unless you can normally cope going up and down 3 flights of stairs. Because that's what it's equivalent to.

Silly me - they are supposed to be mediators, not outcomes, but still...