FINE trial Step test data released in 2017

I'm sure we must already have discussed this, but I've not found the thread/discussion so thought that I'd risk to problem of a re-post (sorry mods).

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/cfs_fine_what_story_does_the_obj_2#incoming-1026066

Woolie's summary of FINE:

As Woolie says, they did eventually release their null results for this anyway so the data might not reveal anything much, but I thought it could be of interest to someone here.

 

Could someone make a presentation of this data? For example mean and standard deviation for each outcome (steps, time pulse) at baseline, 20 weeks and 70 weeks?

I'm not good at playing around with data. I can't even figure which patients are in which treatment group...

 

It just takes some practise, you'll become a professional data torturer in no time!

 

This was the only FINE trial thread I could find - I wanted to post this little exchange.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1270352311949410305


Richard Bentall being an author of the FINE trial, which incidentally is open access here, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859122/

 

I thought: What! A scientist who queries the meaning of an objective outcome?

Then I see:


Just reinforces my sense that many (not all!) psyche scientists live in some sort of alien universe, where different natural laws seem to apply.

 

Apparently (according to Richard Bentall) I'm profoundly ignorant as I believe that a lack of patient blinding can lead to response biases when patients talk to assessors and this bias reverts to the mean at long term followups.

Richard Bentall is in the camp that believes that unblinded trials combined with subjective outcome measures are credible because he hasn't realised that isn't the best that they can do.

 

In other news I just printed myself a winning lotto ticket and demand, DEMAND, that it be honored and anyone who suggests I may have been biased in printing myself a winning lotto ticket is a vexatious anti-science bigot.

I have also awarded myself a PhD in Excellence. I wrote the entire program. I also run the entire program. I wrote all the tests and exams. I graded all the exams and formed an excellent PhD review committee, I am quoted as saying so. I scored perfectly, obviously. Anyone who alleges that I am biased in awarding myself a PhD in Excellence is obviously profoundly ignorant of the fact that this I simply prefer this outcome and this is now a valid peer-reviewed argument against any criticism.

If you refuse to call me Dr Excellent I will scream about being silenced from the world's loudest megaphone.