Professor & patients' paper on the solvable biological challenge of ME/CFS: reader-friendly version
Simon McGrath provides a patient-friendly version of a peer-reviewed paper which highlights some of the most promising biomedical research on ME/CFS ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Hooper response to White's letter to Lancet

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Daisymay, May 31, 2011.

  1. Daisymay

    Daisymay Senior Member

    Messages:
    733
    Likes:
    3,997
    Permission to repost.

    You may recall that Professor Hooper sent an official complaint to the Lancet about the PACE trial paper on CFS/ME. The Lancet has now sent Professor White's reply. Professor Hooper has responded to this and his response can be seen below.


    1. Professor Hoopers detailed response to Professor Whites letter to Dr Horton, editor of the Lancet, about his complaint re: the PACE Trial articles published in The Lancet:

    http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/Comments-on-PDW-letter-re-PACE.htm


    2. Professor White's response to Professor Hooper's complaint to The Lancet:

    http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/whitereply.htm


    3. Professor White's application to the West Midlands MREC (the relevant quoted sentence is on page 5 of 8)

    http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/White-letter-to-MREC-re-synonym.pdf
     
  2. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,671
    Likes:
    28,178
    Correction

    Actually, the adjusted figure is only 35.3m.

    A little bit of explanation about what an adjusted figure might be: say one gender (male or female), gender A, for whatever reason did better (had bigger improvements) than the other gender over the course of the trial; then say one intervention (intervention X) had more (or less) of gender A than another group/the other groups. Then if intervention X improved more than others, it could simply be because they had more of gender A in their group. So one would make an adjustment to the figure to account for this factor. This study adjusted for such factors - because of who was in the GET group, they were more likely to increase their exercise distance by more than the APT group: the unadjusted difference is 45 but the adjusted difference is only 35.3.
     
  3. max

    max

    Messages:
    192
    Likes:
    35
    Prof Hooper, thank you.

    UK media - shameful

    MRC - Why?

    UK Government - I withdraw my consent (implied or otherwise).


    max
     
  4. Angela Kennedy

    Angela Kennedy

    Messages:
    1,026
    Likes:
    163
    Essex, UK
    Thanks for this, Daisymay.

    Some very interesting material here!
     
  5. Enid

    Enid Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,309
    Likes:
    858
    UK
    How one tires of White and his self need to justify himself when researches show otherwise. Try real medicne Mr White.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page