1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for CFS here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 18th March 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! To read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum, click here.
    Dismiss Notice

Caroline Struthers' letter to Cochrane Governing Board

Discussion in 'Psychosomatic news - ME/CFS and Long Covid' started by Peter Trewhitt, Nov 29, 2018.

  1. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Yes, it does with me. Trying to find it but no luck so far. Not the quote of @large donner's, something closer to what you said.
     
    Unable, MEMarge and Invisible Woman like this.
  2. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    https://www.s4me.info/threads/iime-...recommended-treatments.1949/page-8#post-35003

    upload_2019-1-15_20-49-30.png

    https://www.s4me.info/threads/prof-...tific-bbc-radio-4-14-feb-2017.991/#post-29947

    Does he really not see what a joke he is.

    Edit: Added second link.
     
    Last edited: Jan 15, 2019
    Hutan, rvallee, EzzieD and 10 others like this.
  3. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,986
    What Wessely saying is load of rubbish. He was one of the co-authors of Deale et al.
     
    Woolie, Hutan, JohnTheJack and 11 others like this.
  4. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    "As long as it's properly reported (ie, CONSORT), you can do what you like."

    Well, no, you can't actually!
     
    Inara, JohnTheJack, rvallee and 10 others like this.
  5. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Yep. (Post #89)
     
  6. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214
  7. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    Possibly in one of those threads.
     
    MEMarge likes this.
  8. Lucibee

    Lucibee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    1,483
    Location:
    Mid-Wales
    This is why the whole system of peer review needs a rethink. Everyone is marking their own homework. And the journals are just standing back and letting it happen - because that's "Science" innit.
     
    SarahandElly, WillowJ, Inara and 10 others like this.
  9. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    I thought Consort involved reporting all secondary outcomes and thus they didn't follow Consort. They may claim they did because the silently dropped some of the secondary outcomes in the SAP but that is not a new protocol and they give no reasoning.
     
  10. obeat

    obeat Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    681
    Why did the results from PACE have to be CONGRUENT with other studies?
    Surely every study should be independent? Unless of course PACE was about to overturn the results from all the previous trials, and void the GET hypothesis.
     
    Woolie, WillowJ, Inara and 13 others like this.
  11. Sean

    Sean Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    7,041
    Location:
    Australia
    And PACE was supposed to be the great test of those previous and lower powered studies.
     
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2019
    WillowJ, MSEsperanza, EzzieD and 7 others like this.
  12. large donner

    large donner Guest

    Messages:
    1,214

    According to the BPS crowd PACE had to be done because we didn't have a definitive answer previously in a large enough trial.
     
    WillowJ, MSEsperanza, EzzieD and 7 others like this.
  13. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,296
    Location:
    Canada
    And now that PACE is hanging by a thread it's Wessely's position that PACE isn't all that important (unless he or his colleagues are awarded for it being their crowning achievement, of course) because there are other small studies showing the same, which we now know is because they deliberately aligned PACE with past results. Nevermind that PACE was literally the final trial meant to put the past results to their ultimate test, that it failed, as they all failed the same way, without any objective data.

    This kind of nonsense would be ridiculed in most fields of science. It's beyond amateur, it's nakedly fraudulent, with barely any effort to hide this fact because they control the message and institutions. The data shows it's useless at best, harmful at worst, protocol shows a null result, conclusion claims a positive outcome and media coverage boasted a full cure for anyone who wanted it.

    This will seriously be THE textbook case of fraudulent research for decades to come. And Wessely actually mocks us by joking that he knew if they didn't fix the results it would have been a failure. It's not even a secret, it's right there for all to see, if it weren't for prejudice maintaining the suspension of disbelief.
     
  14. MSEsperanza

    MSEsperanza Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,855
    Location:
    betwixt and between
    Just thought it could be helpful to have the following quotes in one post.

    Indeed. Plus, it was not necessary to have analyzed data but was sufficient just to have had a look at some data in order to become afraid that some of the gathered data might not show what they were supposed to show.

    While Wessely's language is too obviously self-revealing:
    Yep. If he had said "comparable", but no, "congruent"....

    And then, in plainest language...
    ---

    *(1) S. Wessely, Sept 23, 2016 at 7:13 am, comment on J. Rehmeyer:
    Bad science misled millions with chronic fatigue syndrome. Here’s how we fought back, Sept 21, 2016, https://www.statnews.com/2016/09/21/chronic-fatigue-syndrome-pace-trial/comment-page-6/#comment-56390
    , posted by @large donner


    *(2) S. Wessely, Standing up for Science panel discussion, March 2017, tweet by Janet Eastham, posted by @Sly Saint / @Barry
     
    Last edited: Jan 16, 2019
  15. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,296
    Location:
    Canada
    Which is absurd on its face. 85 is still below average. This is implausible deniability built on the fiction of a normal distribution on a scale that is heavily skewed.

    Wessely absolutely did give the game away. And people laughed. Haha, so funny, we published fraudulent research that is destroying millions of lives, leaving them in despair and isolation. So funny, hahahaha, it's just a modest proposal, hahahaha.
     
    Starlight, Atle, Sean and 7 others like this.
  16. chrisb

    chrisb Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    4,602
    You shouldn't be so swift to condemn.

    EDIT sorry. Couldn't resist the response to that allusion.
     
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2019
    Starlight likes this.
  17. Barry

    Barry Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    8,385
    A further thought on Wessely's infamous quote ...
    upload_2019-1-27_12-32-38.png
    They could of course only have realised that, by peeking at the data beforehand, or at least having a very good idea what that data was going to show. SW clearly concedes that else he could not have made that statement.
     
    Last edited: Jan 27, 2019
    Binkie4, Cheshire, Keela Too and 10 others like this.
  18. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,269
    Location:
    London, UK
    Today I managed to canvas the opinion of the members of the University College London Department of Medicine at Grand Rounds. The attendance was good, about 80, for a presentation on medical negligence. I asked of the statement:

    An experiment with subjective outcome measures not blinded to test versus control is unreliable and therefore unsatisfactory.

    Do you agree or disagree?

    Nobody disagreed. All agreed bar one abstention.
    I deliberately made the statement general because this is a general principle for science, not just for trials. The abstainer pointed out that more detail might affect his opinion and it is true that there can be mitigating factors.

    So although this is an opinion it is more or less universally held by a body of academics with no vested interest in any particular case.
     
  19. Adrian

    Adrian Administrator Staff Member

    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    UK
    Would they equally have agreed with this version "An experiment with subjective outcome measures not blinded to test versus control is unreliable and therefore unsatisfactory unless the experiment involves ME"
     
    MSEsperanza, Sly Saint, inox and 10 others like this.
  20. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    13,269
    Location:
    London, UK
    I cannot answer without the evidence. However, if the previous head of department had been present he would have been more likely to agree if 'unless' was replaced by 'especially if'.

    Maybe followed by (laughter from audience)
     

Share This Page