Discernment of Mediator and Outcome Measurement in the PACE trial, Chalder,Goldsmith et al, 2021

preprint

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.25.21250436v1

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.25.21250436v1.full.pdf

 

This is exactly what people mean by lies, damn lies and statistics. Fiddling with GIGO data in blatantly biased ways is lying just the same. It's not even lying with a few extra steps, it's lies on top of lies, lies all the way down.

What is the overlap between the angels dancing on hairpins' shoes and adherence to the surface of the hairpins? Blue. Or something. This is not a discussion of substance, it's just made-up BS. The discussion doesn't matter and neither does the answer.

 

Please forgive my inability to remember specifics, but didn't someone, perhaps JohntheJack?, do a freedom of information request for some important PACE data but was denied it because no-one could access the data anymore... I think this is even the second paper released since then. Perhaps worth getting back to them, with this as evidence that someone clearly can still access the data... Just an idea, for something good to come out of this. Kx

 

I am hopeless remembering details but wasn’t this after Prof (White) had retired and his retirement was given as the reason that the data was no longer accessible, even though the eminent professor was still regularly giving lectures to insurance companies and was subsequently listed as the lead researcher in the ten year PACE follow up study.

 

Now published here, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022399921002403 (paywall).

 

Since this is about the observer and the observed -- shouldn't the observer also be part of the study and go through the same process of having their distinct mediators and outcomes assessed in order to better understand their effect on interpreting their observations?

 

I think that is what they call 'harassment'.

 

I suspect this being psychodramaology that all of the concepts / constructs are not able to be properly scientifically validated and rely solely on the people who deem themselves qualified (and with interests now vested) on creating and validating (through observation) that these are all true.

 

Is this what they're planning to use to contest the NICE guidelines?

 

It would be good if we could see the full paper to discover what they deem to be as relevant mediators and outcomes.