BBC: Chronic fatigue trial results 'not robust', new study says

Carolyn Wilshire said:
Thanks for posting this, @Eagles.

Actually, its not too bad as a defence of the PACE trial - given that its tough to make an argument here to save it. Some of the points are actually reasonable:

The first bit is true - we did use a tough method of correction. We could have used 3 comparisons.

However, the second bit of that sentence is blindingly stupid - 52 weeks is the primary endpoint of the trial. It's the primary endpoint. It's the PRIMARY endpoint.

We could have presented odds ratios (obviously not confidence intervals, they're only for continuous data). But this isn't what you said you'd do in the protocol. We did what you originally said you'd do. That was the whole point.
Well, I don't think that's defensible. We carefully examined every published statement made in justification of the changes. No more can be expected, especially not from such a hostile group. Look what it took to get that little data sample we worked on - imagine trying to get them to actually answer our questions!

Translation: even if our study wasn't that impressive, there's all those great other positive studies out there.

Are you referring to the previous, lower-quality poorly controlled studies that gave inflated effects due to their lack of appropriate controls - the ones you were trying to supersede with your better controlled "definitive" study? Its a bit disappointing to be back there in 2007 again. Alas that's the way of artefactual effects in Psychology. The more you control against them, the more they disappear!

For me, I love a good academic argument. Its the stuff that moves science forward. This defence is not a bad effort, but pretty easy to counter. I wish I had a cleverer adversary. That would be much more fun.
Click to expand...
Reading this made me happy. I'm so glad we have you in our corner Carolyn :) you've all done a superb job with this study
 
NelliePledge said:
Is this because the Press Association content used in the Daily Mail is syndicated to these websites/local papers if so this is a great development and we should thank the journalist
Click to expand...
Just an idea.... perhaps we could start a thread for the AP journalist entitled something like "S4ME thanks Jennifer Cockrell for her article" and then we could all put our thanks and comments there & then someone could tweet her a link to it? It would be great if she would come here, especially if it was also pointed out that she could read comments all over the forum from David tuller, Carolyn Wilshire, Jonathan Edwards etc.

For that matter mightn't it be an idea to do a thread for Tom Whipple too? (the times journalist) In fact for everyone that does a decent article.

What does everyone think?
 
April said:
Nothing in the Guardian?
Click to expand...

I have this vision of a sitcom based on PACE with star parts played by somebody like Leonard Rossiter and Penelope Keith. Each episode would include a breakfast scene of almost complete silence, broken by Rossiter saying 'Nothing in the Guardian?' to which Keith would respond with a don't be silly 'no dear'.

And so it goes on.
 
Jonathan Edwards said:
I have this vision of a sitcom based on PACE with star parts played by somebody like Leonard Rossiter and Penelope Keith. Each episode would include a breakfast scene of almost complete silence, broken by Rossiter saying 'Nothing in the Guardian?' to which Keith would respond with a don't be silly 'no dear'.

And so it goes on.
Click to expand...

haha that would be fabulous :D You could have Crawley played by Jennifer Saunders, & have Tom Selleck sweeping in from America as Dave Tuller whom she'd call "that pain in the arse American".

ooo and Nigel Hawthorne could be in it as well :)

ETA no no it wouldnt be 'pain in the arse american', it would be "that frightful American!" (- that may not translate outside Britain)
 
Last edited:
For some reason I get this image of a repeating gag each week, where someone opens a cupboard and SW's head pops out ... so they promptly shove it back in again and close the cupboard.

Edit: And each week it would be a different cupboard. Kitchen cupboard, bathroom cabinet, larder, etc.
 
Last edited:
Carolyn Wilshire said:
But this isn't what you said you'd do in the protocol.
Click to expand...

I just thought I'd point out that this was not from the PACE authors, or at least, it doesn't say it was.

The identity of the author is far from clear, but it says:

"Any specific expertise relevant to studied paper (beyond statistical)?

Experience in the design and analysis of randomised clinical trials. Statistician for Cochrane Collaboration."

Thanks for the comments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom