Caroline Struthers' correspondence and blog on the Cochrane Review: 'Exercise therapy for chronic fatigue syndrome, 2017 and 2019, Larun et al.

Yes, it does with me. Trying to find it but no luck so far. Not the quote of @large donner's, something closer to what you said.

 

https://www.s4me.info/threads/iime-...recommended-treatments.1949/page-8#post-35003



https://www.s4me.info/threads/prof-...tific-bbc-radio-4-14-feb-2017.991/#post-29947

Does he really not see what a joke he is.

Edit: Added second link.

 

What Wessely saying is load of rubbish. He was one of the co-authors of Deale et al.

 

"As long as it's properly reported (ie, CONSORT), you can do what you like."

Well, no, you can't actually!

 

Yep. (Post #89)

 

I remember that now and if my memory serves me well its on video somewhere.

 

Possibly in one of those threads.

 

This is why the whole system of peer review needs a rethink. Everyone is marking their own homework. And the journals are just standing back and letting it happen - because that's "Science" innit.

 

Why did the results from PACE have to be CONGRUENT with other studies?
Surely every study should be independent? Unless of course PACE was about to overturn the results from all the previous trials, and void the GET hypothesis.

 

According to the BPS crowd PACE had to be done because we didn't have a definitive answer previously in a large enough trial.

 

And now that PACE is hanging by a thread it's Wessely's position that PACE isn't all that important (unless he or his colleagues are awarded for it being their crowning achievement, of course) because there are other small studies showing the same, which we now know is because they deliberately aligned PACE with past results. Nevermind that PACE was literally the final trial meant to put the past results to their ultimate test, that it failed, as they all failed the same way, without any objective data.

This kind of nonsense would be ridiculed in most fields of science. It's beyond amateur, it's nakedly fraudulent, with barely any effort to hide this fact because they control the message and institutions. The data shows it's useless at best, harmful at worst, protocol shows a null result, conclusion claims a positive outcome and media coverage boasted a full cure for anyone who wanted it.

This will seriously be THE textbook case of fraudulent research for decades to come. And Wessely actually mocks us by joking that he knew if they didn't fix the results it would have been a failure. It's not even a secret, it's right there for all to see, if it weren't for prejudice maintaining the suspension of disbelief.

 

Just thought it could be helpful to have the following quotes in one post.

Indeed. Plus, it was not necessary to have analyzed data but was sufficient just to have had a look at some data in order to become afraid that some of the gathered data might not show what they were supposed to show.

While Wessely's language is too obviously self-revealing:

Yep. If he had said "comparable", but no, "congruent"....

And then, in plainest language...

---

*(1) S. Wessely, Sept 23, 2016 at 7:13 am, comment on J. Rehmeyer:
Bad science misled millions with chronic fatigue syndrome. Here’s how we fought back, Sept 21, 2016, https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-trial/comment-page-6/#comment-56390
, posted by @large donner

*(2) S. Wessely, Standing up for Science panel discussion, March 2017, tweet by Janet Eastham, posted by @Sly Saint / @Barry

 

Which is absurd on its face. 85 is still below average. This is implausible deniability built on the fiction of a normal distribution on a scale that is heavily skewed.

Wessely absolutely did give the game away. And people laughed. Haha, so funny, we published fraudulent research that is destroying millions of lives, leaving them in despair and isolation. So funny, hahahaha, it's just a modest proposal, hahahaha.

 

You shouldn't be so swift to condemn.

EDIT sorry. Couldn't resist the response to that allusion.

 

A further thought on Wessely's infamous quote ...

They could of course only have realised that, by peeking at the data beforehand, or at least having a very good idea what that data was going to show. SW clearly concedes that else he could not have made that statement.

 

Today I managed to canvas the opinion of the members of the University College London Department of Medicine at Grand Rounds. The attendance was good, about 80, for a presentation on medical negligence. I asked of the statement:

An experiment with subjective outcome measures not blinded to test versus control is unreliable and therefore unsatisfactory.

Do you agree or disagree?

Nobody disagreed. All agreed bar one abstention.
I deliberately made the statement general because this is a general principle for science, not just for trials. The abstainer pointed out that more detail might affect his opinion and it is true that there can be mitigating factors.

So although this is an opinion it is more or less universally held by a body of academics with no vested interest in any particular case.

 

I cannot answer without the evidence. However, if the previous head of department had been present he would have been more likely to agree if 'unless' was replaced by 'especially if'.

Maybe followed by (laughter from audience)