• 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 (FM), 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.

Scientists post open letter to Lancet on Virology Blog - call for independent re-analysis of PACE

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
I'm not kidding, I've got tears in my eyes.

I'm so grateful to the signatories:

Ronald W. Davis, PhD
Professor of Biochemistry and Genetics
Stanford University

Jonathan C.W. Edwards, MD
Emeritus Professor of Medicine
University College London

Leonard A. Jason, PhD
Professor of Psychology
DePaul University

Bruce Levin, PhD
Professor of Biostatistics
Columbia University

Vincent R. Racaniello, PhD
Professor of Microbiology and Immunology
Columbia University

Arthur L. Reingold, MD
Professor of Epidemiology
University of California, Berkeley

Thank you so much, @Jonathan Edwards.
 

Countrygirl

Senior Member
Messages
5,429
Location
UK
Excellent! Thank you to all concerned.

After 40 years, the above is a gross understatement, but you should see the comment I wrote in rough! It was just too emotional after all these years of medical negligence, misunderstanding, insults and outright abuse to post.
 

Denise

Senior Member
Messages
1,095
I don't know but I would imagine they've sent a copy - wouldn't be much point, otherwise. :)

I very much hope they have sent it but it wasn't clear to me on the blog, if they had.
Occupy CFS seems to indicate that the letter has been sent.
I hope that is the case because while blogs appear to be monitored by all sorts of organizations/people, I don't think one can assume that Lancet or Dr. Horton do. So actually sending a letter would seem to give a better chance of it being read by them.
 

DeGenesis

Senior Member
Messages
172
A quote I'm sure most of you are familiar with.

"The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”.

- Richard Horton

I wasn't familiar with his article. My mom brought it to my attention after reading it in our local newspaper.

I haven't been following this saga, so I don't know Dr. Horton's disposition. I can only hope that he takes his own words seriously.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
"The case against science is straightforward: much of the
scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.
Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects,
invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts
of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing
fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has
taken a turn towards darkness. As one participant put
it, “poor methods get results”.

- Richard Horton

Well I would say that's Mornington Crescent isn't it?

At least it is something to relish.
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
This is excellent

However, it's worth noting that many of these key points have already been raised in previous correspondence relating to previous PACE trial papers.

Eg the letters to the editor that followed the first paper on 'recovery' following PACE trial interventions

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/.../pace-trial-letters.../

These criticisms were very firmly dismissed by the authors and by the Lancet.

So we are still on an uphill struggle...
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
This is excellent

However, it's worth noting that many of these key points have already been raised in previous correspondence relating to previous PACE trial papers.

Eg the letters to the editor that followed the first paper on 'recovery' following PACE trial interventions

http://www.meassociation.org.uk/.../pace-trial-letters.../

These criticisms were very firmly dismissed by the authors and by the Lancet.

So we are still on an uphill struggle...

But what's new is that it's big-name scientists who are saying it and it's not buried in the correspondence column of The Lancet - and therefore not under the control of The Lancet.

I think it's important to recognise when things have stepped up a gear!