BMJ: Pressure grows on Lancet to review “flawed” PACE trial

Spot on. My quoted blog’s opening line did make clear patients’ simple motivation:

“Like all patients, what I want most from clinical research is treatments that work, not ones that merely look good on paper."

https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/09/2...nts-to-scrutinise-studies-about-their-health/

 

Is there a rivalry between the Lancet and the BMJ at all?
Just wondered if it might be worth someone writing a letter (as a commentary like this one) to the Lancet re BMJs failure to reply (to @dave30th ) to problems with Crawleys research?

 

A little. But I think you would quickly find The Lancet siding with the BMJ on this one.

(RH really doesn't like the involvement of investigative journalists: https://www.bmj.com/content/342/bmj.c7001)

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1032600199628304385

 

Perfect comment.

 

Well, it was your idea!

 

We now have a rather unhelpful response about toxic metals but at least it is from a doctor, not a patient.

 

Here's the link for all rapid responses: https://www.bmj.com/content/362/bmj.k3621/rapid-responses

 

Which is the snowball effect. A virtuous circle. Exponential increases like this start off slow but accelerate more and more.

 

The author of the article in op
"Ingrid Torjesen
Ingrid Torjesen is a freelance journalist specialising in health and health policy. She is a regular contributor to The BMJ and the Health Service Journal and is editor of The Advisor, a magazine for people working in smoking cessation services. In the past she has acted as news editor for The BMJ; opinion, features and news editors for the HSJ and features editor for Nursing Times. Staff posts include associate editor and news editor of GP newspaper, news editor of Pulse, and reporter at Australian Doctor, based in Sydney. She has a degree in Biological Sciences specialising in Genetics."

she's on twitter and her contact info can be found here:

https://www.pharmaceutical-journal.com/ingrid-torjesen/929.bio?firstPass=false

 

Quite. Even if the truth had been that PwME were start staring bonkers, and come up with ways to genuinely overcome that, it would have been very welcome. As it is it's not the patients who seem to be a tad bonkers.

 

What about the JHP? Might they do an update on this?

 

Michael Sharpe responded too:

Odd piece in Times newspaper about pressure on the Lancet to review unwelcome PACE trial findings
This 'news item' refers to a three times recycled letter that has been repeatedly sent to the editor of the Lancet journal by campaigners, about a study that was published in 2011.

Edit to add: He claims no competing interests. Am I reading right?

 

I think Ingrid Torjesen has learnt quite a bit since she wrote this article back in Jan 2015. Which is good, because it shows that people originally take in by PACE etc, are now beginning to realise the truth.

https://www.bmj.com/content/350/bmj.h227?int_source=trendmd&int_medium=trendmd&int_campaign=trendmd

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1136/bmj.h227

 

Beat me to it. Was about to highlight that. Reading and believing are two different things .

 

I hope @dave30th or @Jonathan Edwards might respond to him. The PACE authors do poorly in debate in the open.

Weirdly, Sharpe says this:

"The trial referred to in the letter was subject to rigorous monitoring whilst being done and extensive peer review before being published. Furthermore, and unusually, because of the campaign against it, has been subject to a number of further reviews after being published, all of which have found its conclusions to be sound."​

What is he talking about? What reviews?

 

Interesting that for MS's comment the title of the article morphed from "Pressure grows on Lancet to review “flawed” PACE trial" to being about "pressure on the Lancet to review unwelcome PACE trial findings"

 

I think there were peer reviews, but the reviewers were as unscientific as the researchers.

 

But he's referring to reviews after publication. What reviews?