Trial By Error: BMJ Amends Last Week’s PACE Article

http://www.virology.ws/2019/02/12/trial-by-error-bmj-amends-last-weeks-pace-article/

Trial By Error: BMJ Amends Last Week’s PACE Article

12 February 2019

By David Tuller, DrPH

Last Wednesday, the UK Health Research Authority released a letter reviewing its analysis of the PACE trial. Members and supporters of the GET/CBT ideological brigades have misrepresented the HRA letter as a vindication of the study. On Thursday, BMJ posted an article about the HRA letter by science journalist Nigel Hawkes.

The BMJ article quoted from a Virology Blog post. After my byline on that post, I had included as always the initials for my public health doctoral degree–DrPH. Yet BMJ identified me as “a US activist” without mentioning my academic credentials and my position at one of the world’s leading research universities...

 

Their level of desperation increases...

 

The thought that we should start referring to them as 'establishment activists' had occurred to me recently.

 

What has "inertism" ever achieved?

 

BPS activists.

 

Even with the 'US activist' still there - didn't the addition of Tullers credentials change the meaning/impact of the ending a bit?

It was ment to read (I guess) as 'look what this activist fool still goes on about'. But now it's more like 'the US academic got the last word and corrects the UK bunch that didn't read the finer details.....?

But then, I'm biased

 

Less PEM?

 

I am somehow reminded of this clip

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=POB3Dr0uonc

 

More 'US Activists' ?

 

worth someone posting in a comment?

 

And this, in turn, reminds me if the movie "Bob Roberts", which was good but a pain to watch. (Because "Barts" or "Bobs" shouldn't win...But actually they do...)

 

Do we know what corrections/clarifications have been made/added?
The original is still behind a paywall.

 

I've just written about that:
http://www.virology.ws/2019/02/12/t...bSYli0jLEI_Q3WEsEjvzlzpI7-nKHNazYBNEI2sQUiZrc

 

Errr... yes - that's what I was referring to! BMJ website visitors can't even see the correction notice.

 

oh, I didn't realize that. I sometimes can't tell what's behind a wall or what I've gotten through library access.

 

And of course only non-muggles and those who are employees of the Ministry of Magic will see the correction if they are looking at the print version.

 

OK. Here are quotes from the original of all the bits that refer to "activists" etc. Does anyone have access to the updated version to see what's been changed and what's not?

 

I feel that this article should be open access anyway. BMJ journalist attacks "activists" but we can't see it as patients (activists or not) because we can't afford £23 for one day's access. Does anyone know if there's a Sci-hub link? I don't know how to search for one.

I'm getting ANGRY! And I suspect @Daysailer might say that when I get angry I won't back down.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nvlTJrNJ5lA

 

http://sci-hub.tw/10.1136/bmj.l639

 

And that's the original version, not the new version.