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

And it still leaves me fuming, angry, pissed off, etc etc etc.

It reads like an attack on all patient advocates rather than a clear report on the (bloody useless) report from the HRA.

 

So what's the URL for the new version?

 

Same as the old one of course! But scihub only captures an archived version of the old one.

 

Actually thought it was open access, as I don't pay for it or have any special access. Or so I thougt. Turns out having a norwegian IP + once clicked 'yes, I'm a health care worker' (I'm not) on a page that translates to 'the health library' I'm getting access through them. Funded by 'the national institute of public health'.

But enough bragging

Other things might have changed, only compared the paras quoted.

Edit: For those having trouble reading - scroll down to post underneath, changes only posted.

Not about activists - but between para 10 and 11, a new sentence/para added:

Edit: Added quote box.

 

Only the changed bits, for easier reading. The new sentences bolded:

 

Wow, well that's digging in.

 

omg they are making it even worse by adding that sentence - that implies that the "activists" they are talking about are not those who have raised legitimate concerns about the trial's conduct.

Ref 3 is the reference to a letter about @dave30th 's letter to The Lancet, which was previously cited at the end of the first sentence.

Let's all wave at Dave in his balloon as he sails away from the activist quagmire! [that's a joke btw]

 

Ah, didn't notice the reference - the first time I read it, and didn't realise the article had been editet, it just came of as a bit wierdly out of place sentence. See your point. Not sure if the article by by Torjesen - "Pressure grows on Lancet to review "flawed" PACE trial" - is open access, so adding the opening para:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30135174

Edit: spelling

 

But of course, because any concerns about the trial's conduct could never be correct. It was a thing of beauty. The definitive trail that got where it was always meant to go. How could there be any real concerns?

smh

 

Indeed. I suggest they prove they can cure cancer with CBT since that kind of statistical distortion could do it. Lets see how long their medical licenses stay valid

 

Something i just thought of, have any of the Nobel laureates from OMF signed onto any of the PACE criticisms?
If so thats worth also mentioning.

 

When it comes to patients, perhaps instead of "activists" they should have used the term "engaged patients," as this 2016 World Health Organization document would seem to suggest.


Patient Engagement: Technical Series on Safer Primary Care

https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/252269/9789241511629-eng.pdf

 

But that would suggest patients making scientific and statistically backed up arguments should be treated as legitimate.

 

I like the work of Underhill
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...87715003825?dgcid=raven_sd_recommender_email#!