Hooper response to White's letter to Lancet

[Daisymay]

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

 

[Dolphin]

Correction

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

In the PACE Trial, the walking test was a secondary outcome measure in which the increased distance walked in the GET group was only 45 metres compared with those who received standardised specialist medical care (which amounted to little more than being given a leaflet, advice on balancing exercise and rest and antidepressants if required), which is hardly a ringing endorsement of the intervention.

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.

 

[max]

Prof Hooper, thank you.

UK media - shameful

MRC - Why?

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


max

 

[Angela Kennedy]

Thanks for this, Daisymay.

Some very interesting material here!

 

[Enid]

How one tires of White and his self need to justify himself when researches show otherwise. Try real medicne Mr White.