Intent is the core of the issue.To me it is the intent to mislead that is important.
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Intent is the core of the issue.To me it is the intent to mislead that is important.
they've always insisted that they made the decision to change the trial protocol before they'd done any analysis of the trial data - with the implication being that they had no idea what the results would have been if analysed in accordance with the original protocol.
the ''too extreme'' threshold in the original protocol was 85 - which as i understand it is the normative for a healthy working age person
So 85 is way below the norm and 85 covers the majority of the healthy working age population.
85 is below normal for a healthy working age person.
17% of the working population fall below 85. 22% are at 85 or less. The median (typical value is 100).
If we take out those people with long term health conditions (i.e. to get healthy working age people) the about 8% of people are under the 85 range with 61% scoring 100, 17% 95, 9% on 90 and 4% are on 85.
So 85 is way below the norm and 85 covers the majority of the healthy working age population.
Ah. thanks for that, I stand corrected.
Do you have a source/ref for those figures please? Not that i dont believe them, it makes sense to me, i'd just like to be able to quote them & to do that I'd like to be able to back them up with where i got them.
I think Wessely was trying to imply that SF36 Physical Functioning score of 85 is too stringent. It's completely bullshit of course, and he relies on the ignorance of his audience to get away with it. But he may have been trying to avoid telling an outright lie, and ended up telling a bit too much of the truth in the process.If they knew they were going to find that none of the treatments worked and they amended their methodology so that they could suppress the original results and instead report a positive effect for their preferred treatments - well, that starts to sound like falsification to me
I can believe it. Prosecuting someone for this would be extraordinarily difficult, unless there's a record of them somewhere saying "Let's do some fraud!", more or less. But I can easily see it killing their careers, and I think that's a much better outcome to aim for.I cannot believe this will not eventually transition into something legally punitive in due course.
This is why it would be very hard to prove outright fraud. In most crimes, intent is obvious in that someone carried out a physical act which requires intentional actions. It's less clear when the inappropriate action could be due to gross incompetence instead of only intent. But for the purposes of ending their careers, it doesn't matter. They've been doing research for decades, and can't claim that they just need a second chance to learn how to conduct research properly.Intent is the core of the issue.
If the route doesn't turn out to be too popular, they can always change it half-way along.The exact route is being finalised, this information will be made available in due course.
thanks. & great job working that out.They are figures I have worked out from the survey that Bowling wrote her paper on. I can't remember if it is the ONS or HSE study but the data is quite similar.
If the route doesn't turn out to be too popular, they can always change it half-way along.
thanks. & great job working that out.
Sorry to be dense but what am i searching for then in order to find that report? or even Bowling's Paper? I've never heard of either & the people i would tell those figures to will want to check the facts. No worries just ignore me if it's a hassle.
thanks. & great job working that out.
Sorry to be dense but what am i searching for then in order to find that report? or even Bowling's Paper? I've never heard of either & the people i would tell those figures to will want to check the facts. No worries just ignore me if it's a hassle.
We changed our original protocol's threshold score for being within a normal range on this measure from a score of ⩾85 to a lower score as that threshold would mean that approximately half the general working age population would fall outside the normal range. The mean (s.d.) scores for a demographically representative English adult population were 86.3 (22.5) for males and 81.8 (25.7) for females (Bowling et al. 1999). We derived a mean (s.d.) score of 84 (24) for the whole sample, giving a normal range of 60 or above for physical function.
Bowling A, Bond M, Jenkinson C, Lamping DL (1999). Short Form 36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire: which normative data should be used? Comparisons between the norms provided by the Omnibus Survey in Britain, the Health Survey for England and the Oxford Healthy Life Survey. Journal of Public Health Medicine 21, 255–270 [PubMed]
Office of Population Censuses and Surveys. Social Survey Division, OPCS Omnibus Survey, November 1992 [computer file]. Colchester, Essex: UK Data Archive [distributor], September 1997. SN: 3660, doi:10.5255/UKDA-SN-3660-1
Is "ambiguous" a word anyone used? SW probably wishes it was, and as usual thinks that if he says it, everyone will accept it as true. In fact looking through the twitter comments no-one has used the word "ambiguous", although I did spot "nonsense" and "disgraceful". Why can't he just say "It's been pointed out that my answer was disgraceful nonsense" instead of trying to reframe the story as usual?It's been pointed out my answer was ambiguous.
It's been pointed out my answer was ambiguous.
To be clear the change was before the analysis
Apols for any confusion