Search results

As far as I can tell, her name was not mentioned publicly by anyone. It almost feels verboten--lots of sensitivities about it, it would seem. Her absence is palpable--she is sort of present in her absence, if that makes sense. But it has been a refreshingly BPS-free zone so far.

I wasn't scheduled to speak. Chris Ponting suggested I say a few words at an open slot at the end of the day, so I took the opportunity to do so. My point was the same as always--PACE is scientific misconduct, it's shocking that the UK academic and medical establishment has accepted and defended...

I don't get that, because recruitment started in 2015 by all accounts, so at that point it was prospective. I'm not sure why they pre-dated it by two years.

I don't think they can claim any of it was pre-specified. they carefully have never said that, as far as I can tell, about the "recovery" definition--only about the change in the primary outcome to the comparison of means, which they did get oversight approval for. They have fudged tremendously...

They called the entire class of requests "vexatious" in one of the statements to the IOC. So I think it's fair to apply that to all the requests. On a couple of the other nuances, you're right. They never claimed to have gotten permission to change the recovery definition--they just did it on...

I don't think "loophole" is the right word. They're doing something they're not supposed to do. Prospective means prospective--as in, before the trial begins. What's been done here is not exploiting a loophole, it's violating scientific practice and getting away with it because no one is...

if the results from the feasibility study weren't good, why would she have wanted to keep them?

Right--"substantial amendments" are officially only subject to a vote by a subcommittee of at least two.

It would normally mean the start of recruitment for the trial, I think--just like a criminal trial formally begins on the date jury selection starts, at least in U.S.

Nothing in the BMJ Open version of the trial protocol suggesting that they had pre-selected primary and secondary outcomes. They just listed all the measures they would take.

I might have missed this in the exchanges. The trial registration lists the outcomes for both the feasibility study and the full trial. Is there a feasibility study protocol? Did they specify before doing the feasibility study what the full trial outcomes would be if it got extended, or did they...

Does anyone know if they changed the outcome measures for the full MAGENTA trial from those outlined in the feasibility trial? That would be an especially big problem. That's what happened in SMILE--primary and secondary outcomes were swapped based on the feasibility trial findings.

Well, remember the packet of study abstracts that Mayo provided to back up its treatment included the Lightning Process study.

I'm planning to go but haven't really looked over the schedule yet.

isn't the change on day 2 measured in gas output? that doesn't reflect a change in muscle chemistry?

When discussing GET, I've generally referred to it as "possibly harmful" or something along those lines. And I've also indicated that it is contra-indicated if the cardinal symptom, per IOM and others, is PEM or "exertion intolerance" or whatever it's called. I have also cited the surveys that...

When discussing GET, I've generally referred to it as "possibly harmful" or something along those lines. And I've also indicated that it is contra-indicated if the cardinal symptom, per IOM and others, is PEM or "exertion intolerance" or whatever it's called. I have also cited the surveys that...

Thanks, @Esther12--I've fixed the typo and linked to the Courtney comments

yes, sending it to them today.

Just to clarify slightly, I think I said that I only knew of Berkeley. I didn't exclude that it was being used elsewhere, just that I didn't know about it. So I wanted to make sure that if the statement was going to be used, it was not being based on something someone thought I'd said.