Search results

She's a reactionary skeptic. She once pounced on a tweet of mine in which I was suggesting a book for a popular science prize, and she derided it as being too pop sciency(!) It was clear she had neither read the book in question or understood the research behind it, even though it should have...

Well, quite [to eve.ry.thing]

Yes, but PW has retired, so no idea who is now doing it (if it is still being done). Also, why just a feasibility study? And 10 years for some participants passed 4 years ago... We're still waiting for the 5-year follow-up study to be published!

[Note: I've just edited my first post to show the link where this thread originated from]

That was my concern about soliciting stories, rather than finding historical accounts elsewhere online. The only way of doing this properly is to interview all trial participants - which should have happened by way of 5 or 10-year follow-up - particularly once concerns had been raised.

I've saved some responses, but I can't see "Tweets and Replies".

I think I might have an inkling how the reduction to 60 occurred conceptually - if you assume that the whole "normal (not normal) range" thing was more of a post-hoc explanation on their part. The mean PF scores in the groups at baseline was about 40. What they *thought* they were doing (aiming...

MS and PW have consistently said over the years that "no-one was harmed in the PACE trial", and that any harms resulting from GET (or CBT) outside the trial are because it isn't being done according to the trial protocol. It's clear that the authors have no intention of following up the...

Thanks for explaining @Graham. It's never made any sense why their "recovery" criteria are in many ways less stringent than the criteria for "improvement" - hence my confusion - I had assumed (clearly wrongly) that they had at least included those who had improved! I have looked at the data...

Thanks. This one from Lois Addy: http://copingbadly.blogspot.com/2018/03/reanalysis-of-pace-data.html And another - left as a comment on Keith Laws blog: This is concerning because the trial was well over by then - so what on earth were they doing still recruiting patients? Link to the post...

Link: https://www.s4me.info/threads/pace-reports-from-trial-participants-get-cbt.4761/

Sorry to be nit-picky too, but there is an issue with the whole recovery cut-off thing that keeps being ignored. It seems to have become a bit of a meme this thing that you could enter the trial with a score of 65 and yet be recovered with a score of 60. It's just not true. The recovery criteria...

Might it be an idea to make this thread members only?

Ah - That means he can see this forum. *waves to Prof Sharpe*

Shhhhhh!

I've just joined the Blocked by Sharpe Club!

Ah - I've seen that before. No. 17 (Lois Addy) is the same person who posted the blog I mentioned (http://copingbadly.blogspot.com/2018/03/reanalysis-of-pace-data.html). Is this available publicly somewhere, and have the comments been verified as coming from trial participants?

My ultra-slow computer won't let me see that.

And another - left as a comment on Keith Laws blog: This is concerning because the trial was well over by then - so what on earth were they doing still recruiting patients? [Edit: Thread moved to here]

Is there a thread on here where we are recording PACE stories? I found this one: http://copingbadly.blogspot.com/2018/03/reanalysis-of-pace-data.html (I'm having trouble tracking down any more - my computer seems to be on strike and is doing everything ..... very.... slowly .... at ...... the...