Here's the whole thing
View attachment 14523
Goldacre was always going to be after any opportunity to seize the moral high ground if doing so offered a plausible way of wriggling out of denouncing PACE. He says he doesn't want PACE exempted from the usual considerations on transparency, and yet he still says nothing to denounce it.
Saying that he's "sure PACE exhibits many of the bad features that are common in trials throughout medicine" implies
a). he hasn't looked at the specific flaws in PACE;
b). he's sure the flaws will just be the usual problems you'd commonly expect with medical trials.
Neither of these makes Goldacre look good.
a). suggests an unaccountable lack of interest on his part in the very thing about which there is so much controversy and upon which he's spending so much time responding to Coyne;
b). is an attempt to get people to regard PACE's flaws as unexceptional and therefore not particularly serious.
All the negative criticism of PACE over the years from far more people than just Coyne, together with the extreme lengths the PACE investigators are currently going to to keep the data under wraps, should tell anyone who is even half awake that PACE's flaws are anything but unexceptional, and their seriousness can be quantified by the large number of sick people who can testify to not having been helped, or actually harmed, by the clinical application of the trial's conclusions (or should that be "hypotheses"?).
The extent of the damage done by PACE's "bad features" is something Goldacre has not given sufficient consideration to, it seems; if he had given it sufficient consideration, he might feel less justified in wriggling out of obligations that his loudly professed intellectual priorities already place him under.