Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Lou Corsius, Jun 13, 2018.
No serious answer from the Professor or his twitter troll ally at cfs research are they just searching for evidence of abusive patients when unable to substantiate claims made at the FOI tribunal.
I think what they are achieving is a very good audit trail of some very competent questioning and critiques of their work, interspersed with some very shallow response from themselves.
Poor science is poor science, Michael, regardless of the "results". There are criticisms of the way reports of harms were handled too.
Bias, even if it existed in this case, is irrelevent to a certain extent.
If you find an irrefutable technical flaw in a study, it is a flaw regardless of the motivation for doing so.
Also if PACE found CBT+GET to be harmful, but significant numbers of patients were claiming to have recovered after treatment with CBT+GET and the reports of harm on patient surveys were minimal, then I can say with absolute certainty that a similar level of scrutiny would be applied as patients would be desperate for the NHS to support meaningful treatments.
He's missing the point here, they haven't released the true data for harms found. Also CBT was used as a brainwashing tool to illicit a required response. Namely "I'm better cos if I don't say I am I wont get better and wasn't ill anyway."
Well we don't often see Michael Sharpe shut up and back away, so that's an achievement in itself @Lou Corsius
Is there such a thing as a reverse Socratic method?
I think it is generally known as "bullshit baffles brains".
Whenever patients make mistakes in their criticisms of the PACE trial, I can look at these twitter accounts to cheer myself back up again.
Separate names with a comma.