worldbackwards
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,051
I admire your optimism.Good point, I hope the authors will now publish in a journal to set the scientific record straight.
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.
I admire your optimism.Good point, I hope the authors will now publish in a journal to set the scientific record straight.
The latest reports don't give the figures for improvements they reported in the Lancet (included in the graph above). A very important omission in my book. Basically more spin.The results don't look nearly so good according to the protocol
View attachment 17186
Note the Lancet paper and the protocol use very different definitions of improver, but I guess that's the whole point.
Take your point, and my phrasing was ambiguous. But if the main paper's results are going to be re-analysed using the original protocol thresholds, then the important recovery and follow-up papers' results should be too.Not sure what if they promised anything under 2.5 year follow-up data.
Though I'm pretty sure they collected employment data but so far we haven't seen any.
Presumably they think this will negate the need for them to release the raw data. Idiots! I have to wonder what we're really not seeing. After all we knew it was going to be dodgy..giving us this fills me with no confidence at all (obviously). I'd like to see how the data was actually gathered. I still wonder if they could have purloined data from the NOD... What are they so afraid of?This is no substitute for the data that they should have released, that we asked them to release and the court said they should release. We still don't have the true facts from them.
Not much chance of that, the only analysis that anyone's interested now is one done by scientists that we trust. The PACE authors hardly fit that description, anything they do now is just free entertainment.It's important that people don't get carried away just yet. I think an independent analysis of PACE will be much more damning, and we should not be content with letting PACE authors interpret their own results, regardless of the protocol used.
OK, I must admit that I am not that clued up on the protocols for publishing research data, but isn't this rather odd in that respect. There is no mention of this being published in a scientific journal and no suggestion that it is a pre-print. Would this sort of thing not usually be submitted as at least a formal letter to a journal or a comment on an online paper? Does it count as science if it is not formally published?
Won't even The Lancet touch this now?
One ongoing since about 2003. But in its defence it does appear to be approaching the punchline.Its a joke, right?
I think most will recognize this as satirical, but you might want to add something to that effect for anyone in deep brain fog.Conclusion: CBT and GET are effective treatments! So nothing has changed. They win!
Modifying definitions so the new technical definition is more likely to give the results they want is their modus operandi.Additionally, they used a modified Fukuda that only required symptoms for 1 week, not 6 months, which they acknowledged might not be accurate.
As I have said before, promotion by rhetoric and claim, not evidence and reason. Having a public relations organization, oh, sorry, the SMC, on their side and promoting their view does not help their case either. The data has to be released. If the results are good it will show it. If they are not good it will show that too.How very House of Cards. Not scientists, spin doctors.
Presumably they think this will negate the need for them to release the raw data. Idiots! I have to wonder what we're really not seeing. After all we knew it was going to be dodgy..giving us this fills me with no confidence at all (obviously). I'd like to see how the data was actually gathered. I still wonder if they could have purloined data from the NOD... What are they so afraid of?
Not safe, but good enough to bet on.Based on this analysis and their strange behaviour / appetite for endless litigation, I think it's safe to assume that recovery rates were in the 0% range.
If this is damage control they would have wanted it out immediately.Won't even The Lancet touch this now?
Good point, I hope the authors will now publish in a journal to set the scientific record straight.
Sharpe has been very busy deleting dozens of tweets that responded to him regarding this.
He can only delete his own tweets and he can block people.I don't think that's how twitter works, is it? He can't delete other people's tweets.