Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by Countrygirl, Mar 1, 2017.
Thank you so much to Janet Eastham. Glad someone there was 'standing up for science'!
It is obviously utter nonsense to disallow citing others. That is what you are supposed to do in science.
I don't see much factual argumentation or engaging with details coming from Wessely. It's all just emotionally-laden non-speak, grand statements and vague assertions to unrelated anecdotes. He doesn't address any criticism, just talks around it and broadcasts his opinions as though they have some special status. Makes me wonder if he took that course at Trump university.
Is this the most incriminating statement ever made on the pace trial?
An admission that the protocol was changed to get desired results.
The question the PIs need to answer is what changed between initial protocol approval and protocol amendment to justify the amendment?
He would claim it was a "joke" as laughing at the patient and medical critics.... "imagine if we changed it to get a better result, ha ha, as if we would"
Yes, thank you very much to Janet Eastham
Wessely is, first and foremost, a propagandist and political manipulator, one of the best you will ever see in action.
I have no idea. But she's well placed and seems very briefed on the nuances doesn't she?
I've just asked this on another thread (in the General News forum) but isn't this an admission that they falsified their results? They found that none of the four trialled treatments led to recovery - but rather than report that finding they changed the trial methodology so that they could instead report that their preferred treatments were moderately effective (all the while suppressing the original results, refusing access to the trial data, and playing down the impact that the changes had on the reported outcome). Does that not fit the definition of 'falsification of results' - or does falsification have a more limited definition?
It seems totally bizarre to claim otherwise. Dont people quote Newton or Einstein all the time in debates for example. Or are we supposed to believe that's only ok because they have been published. But then isn't most of the BPS critique published also.
How about Wessely just being allowed to claim that the whole patient community is just anti psychiatry is that ok? How about Wesselys death threat claims without the alleged issuer of the threat being present?
You can also try a Google Site Search
Separate names with a comma.