Response: Sharpe, Goldsmith and Chalder fail to restore confidence in the PACE trial findings

It's when you use the blunt face of the razor. It doesn't so much cut as crush and puree but then all you have to do is redefine what cutting means and you're good to go, fast-track everything to the Lancet and have your buddies do a positive review for Cochrane.

 

Sharpe really is incorrigible. As always, strongly implying untruths by very selectively filtering the truths that get seen and those that get hidden. He is getting so blatant with it now. Desperate? And he purports to be a scientist. He seems to think this is how science is done. I'm convinced this mindset played a major part in the PACE methodological flaws.

 

Keith R Laws@Keith_Laws
· 21h
Ohh...I see Professor Sharpe, who was following me, has today blocked me after Tweeting this response from @wilshica and @TomKindlon to his #PACE paper https://bmcpsychology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s40359-019-0296-x … such is Twitter-life



My, someone really has put his huffy knickers on today.

 

Why did I suddenly think of cubscouting?

Can't understand basic science, can only understand tweeting inane non-sequiter gripes?

 

This has to have a bearing on the Cochrane review. Surely the weaknesses of the PACE trial paper are so laid bare now that there's no place left to hide them however hard some might try. I'm having trouble weighing this up against my ingrained low expectations though. What do others think?

 

If you declare the PACE trial inadmissable (because changing endpoints to make sure you get the right result is not science - as the authors have admitted they did in print) and use the published results from FINE rather than the unpublished adhoc results, there can barely be enough numbers left to say anything, can there?

 

If they couldn't spot the problems with that piece for themself, that's a sign that they really shouldn't be getting paid for anything to do with CFS.

 

FINE had null results and it's still used as positive evidence in the review. Quality of evidence is obviously not a factor here.

But it's hard to maintain the value of the review without the only ersatz evidence of any value, thanks to its combined eminence of being very expensive and being published by The Lancet (who would never, ever publish flawed research, QED).

 

Bizarrely I found this on MS twitter feed
Using evidence to overcome fake news about healthcare
a podcast of a shortish lecture by Professor Carl Heneghan

http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/using-evidence-overcome-fake-news-about-healthcare

CEBM is
The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine develops, promotes and disseminates better evidence for healthcare.
https://www.cebm.net/

he's on twitter
https://twitter.com/carlheneghan?lang=en

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1118407674989809664

 

https://twitter.com/user/status/1242975872241545216