Search results

Surely those are predictions, not assumptions. And if they are assumptions, they can't claim to be in "a position of equipoise". So it's basically, previous trials showed this, so we'll repeat them, make all the same mistakes and assumptions and get the same result. Bingo!

I'm defo having an "off" day. I'm talking rubbish. I get extremely frustrated when i can't understand stats any more. :(

OK - they *thought* it was a good proxy. And yeah, is easily shifted by persuasion. I thought that's what I was trying to say. Brain not working today. [I've deleted the post]

Good spot! They cannot claim equipoise if the hypotheses are unidirectional.

Here is my gif of 6mWT vs PF for all groups. Data missing at the end is shown in red at the start.

I've created this thread as a repository for user-generated graphs and gifs related to the PACE trial.

So I don't clutter up this thread with my gifs any more, I'm going to start a new thread for PACE graphs and gifs...

I prefer the gif because it loops back to the beginning. With YouTube video, you lose that.

There is definitely a correlation - but what happens is that the intervention (+ regression to the mean) just shifts everything [well, not everything, but you know what I mean] to the right. There's also a big hole where I suspect the missing data goes.

I'll try again...

Not sure whether this will upload, but I did a video of that a while ago... I have done 6mWT vs PF in GET arm separately, but I can't work out how to convert it into an uploadable format... But here's the gif...(GET is bottom right) [update: I do have a better version of this gif, uploaded here]

Well it clearly had a *huge* effect on the debate, didn't it! I don't think Sharpe was expecting to have to apologise after providing that as a briefing...

Having now done it, I can totally agree with you! That was sooooo fun (not)! https://lucibee.wordpress.com/2018/07/02/sharpes-briefing-on-the-so-called-pace-trial-for-the-21-june-2018-westminster-hall-debate/ [btw - I'm happy to edit to add links or comments or whatever - or if anyone wants to...

I couldn't disagree more. It's essential that we keep on debunking this nonsense. I'm happy to take on the task if no-one else has the energy!

I've tentatively asked this elsewhere, but does anyone know how Sonia is? She disappeared from Twitter (@openmylab) in October last year.

When I last looked, there wasn't anything at all there under the "PACE stories" tab.

We've moved this to another thread now. StopGET didn't really get very far with patient reports, as far as I can tell.

Also, does anyone know what article he is referring to here? (He wouldn't answer when I asked for a reference to it) Edited to include original tweet:

We have at least established some useful information from MS though - and it might be as well to summarise that here: - PACE was "just a trial", that didn't change anything. So why was it fast tracked? There was no urgency, and in fact it sounds like The Lancet were getting quite impatient...