BBC: Chronic fatigue trial results 'not robust', new study says

Nothing in the Guardian?

 

No, but I'm gay, and I think both Denzel and Idris are very sexy.

 

Upvoting Idris . . .

 

The SMC commentator says:

However, it is worth noting the PACE trial was planned at a time when trial registration was in its infancy and the problems with selective reporting were less well known.

This is not right. When I designed a large phase 2 study in 2000 the issue of a predefined primary endpoint was taken as fundamental. Moreover, people were aware of the problem of shifting endpoints way back. For MRC statisticians not to have been aware of the problem is straightforward incompetence.

The authors have made little attempt to uncover the reasons for protocol deviations in the PACE trial or the point at which they were made; trialists could have been invited to comment.

The irony of this will not be lost on anyone here.

The latest such Cochrane review (of exercise therapies, from 2017) includes eight studies other than PACE, and does come to positive conclusions about some aspects of effectiveness of exercise therapies.

Er, yes, but which aspects were those? And was the review methodology any good? How do you do a review of controlled trials when none of them are adequately controlled?



I wonder if this statistician for the Cochrane collaboration would consider themselves sufficiently independent to make themselves known and bid for the £500 offered to a charity of their choice in response to a plausible account of why PACE is 'good science'.

 

so is Tom Selleck

 

"Sorry mate who are you again?"

"Journalist"

"Which journalist?"

"THE Journalist!!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51gFUF5s6TQ

 

Please don't let him be in the biscuit tin.

 

Idris is way better. And British, not African-American. I still think he should be Bond . ..

 

Where would we be without Mr. Vogt for some unbiased impartial commentary.

https://twitter.com/user/status/977283176220495873

 

I fear he might be lurking in with the rest of the Jammie Dodgers.

 

so..... to those who liked my post @Hutan @ladycatlover @Luther Blissett @Invisible Woman @Jan @Trish @dangermouse @adambeyoncelowe ..... does that mean you think i should start a thread? I dont like to start one entitled "S4ME thanks..." as i dont really feel it's my place to speak for the forum group? i dunno i feel a bit uncomfortable doing that unless asked to or given the go ahead by someone on the committee. But i think thats what the title should be.... ? can people comment pls. I'm keen for those of us who want to thank her/Tom Whipple but arent on twitter ourselves to have a way to do it because it think it's really important that they see how very appreciative we are, & i do think if someone could tweet her the link she'd probably follow a link with that title.

 

I like the idea @JemPD. I think it should be decided on by the committee though.

There is a danger if you invite journalist interest into a thread and someone decides to be disruptive or take their anger out inappropriately it could backfire badly. I think the committee should take a view on how they would like to handle that.

 

He does our job for us by tweeting the link. What will have the most impact; the article or his unintelligent commentary?

If there is data out there that invalidates your hypothesis, you'd better not call attention to it. That's 101.

 

Yes this was one of my concerns.
@Trish .....I'd like to draw this post & idea to the attention of the committee for consideration (hence my including the quotes from the start of the specific discussion) but i dont like to tag them all here as i'm aware everyone is both very busy & has their own health to consider. I'm not sure what to do next. Could you advise me pls?

 

Thanks @Trish I trust the group's wisdom on this completely

 

We'd be doing something outlandish, like believing that killing Socrates was the wrong thing to do?

You can't just go around questioning authority you know. It corrupts the morals of society. Shame on us.

 

I'm fairly sure that I have never killed anyone, called Socrates, I certainly never intended to, and if I had done I might be really quite disappointed with myself, for not being courteous enough to remember.

Then again, I might not, there must be hundreds of people out there I haven't killed, and to be honest I'm really not bothered about it, so why would it be any different in the case of someone called Socrates.

 

Man, this thread has gone off track way too many times, I can't keep up. To be clear, we are talking Greek philosopher here, not confessing to some involvement in the untimely demise of the brilliant Brazilian football player?