Analysis of minister’s response in Westminster Hall PACE debate

Sorry, I've just enabled sharing.

I am hoping that someone might be you, @Jonathan Edwards. In the meantime, could I ask you to post your comments below the article so that as many people read them as possible? Thanks.

 

Comment awaiting moderation.

 

Perhaps the illness and patients are seen as unworthy. If that sentiment is pervasive in the circle of people involved in all this, disrespectful behaviour and rule violations could be the normal. As normal as having coffee for breakfeast.

 

Been trying to get my head round whether it is unethical to fund a trial whose hypothesis is one you favour. I imagine it's how a great many trials might be funded. It clearly becomes unethical if the trial itself is unethically run, and especially if the researchers have any conflicts of interests that might bias them towards wanting to please their funders. Which then makes me think that if funders are clearly partisan, can researchers ever then be completely unbiased? Is there always going to be a tendency to want to please the funder, so you can go back for more funding another time?

Having written all that, it now seems to me the safest thing is for funders to clearly be non-partisan.

But still confused.

 

Comment of the day

 

That Chalder statement and the fact that Wessely was both a stakeholder/supporter(someone help me, what was it?) or whatever to PACE and the one who set up the ME section of Cochrane should put to bed any claims of unbiased review from Cochrane. We should have all our advocates keep that info at hand to beat them around the ears with. In fact we should be using that Chalder statement as a pre-emptive attack in articles where both sides are gonna have a say. It'll make them look even worse than they already do.

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/971112908489936898