• 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.

Ben Goldacre: checking if clinical trials reported what they said they would

Messages
2,087
What @Mrs Sowester and @Hip said.

Let Coyne speak. We've been wanting someone credible/high profile for ages. Nine pages of bashing and goading BG will not get us anywhere. State your view, nothing wrong with that, but nine pages seems IMHO a bit excessive and repetitive.

I don't want to contribute more to this thread when I can spend my time advocating for the same issues in other ways.

Barb
Its definitly repetitive but I blame the people who disagree with me :rofl:
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
If Goldacre doesn't like the game, and hasn't (by his own admission) even been bothered to read the PACE papers, the criticism of them, and taken advice from independent experts on various technical issues, then he should STFU about PACE, that whole area of medicine, and the way patients are responding.

Can't have it both ways, Mr G. If you are going to comment on it, particularly as somebody with some expertise, then expect some flak if you get it wrong.
 

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
BG has admitted that he expects there are flaws as pointed out to the PACE trial on twitter. I may be paraphrasing wrongly but last I saw JC and BG called a truce.

There have been so many tweets gone by on the subject it's hard to keep up with what has been said (let alone remember).
We can be assured that BG is plenty aware of our position. And I agree with others that for now we should take a breather let it sit for a bit and assess what is useful to do moving forward.

That's not to say that I have a problem with us PR peeps coming here to blow off steam about anything or anyone (within PR forum rules). PR is our space. Some of us are locked up tight as a jail--with very limited outlets. Again, this is our space--if others come here (healthy people) and see people being dissed for not supporting PwME or being hostile or whatever--they're in our space--if they don't like it they can/should leave/grow a thicker skin or change their ways.

As an addendum--I think we are making some good progress getting others to see the flaws of the PACE trial (thanks JC and DT)
But there are two sides to this. The other side being that the PACE PI's are very well protected. They lob their assault on us PwME from afar and very secure place. That's partly why they're still at it.

I believe we need to find a way to put pressure on the people (politicians) protecting them. And that doesn't need to happen alone. There are other groups who suffer as we do from that political self interest.
 

barbc56

Senior Member
Messages
3,657
??????

We don't know BG's overall workload whereas NEJM has editors whose job is to work on such projects.

A bit harsh. Are we so desperate to criticize him that we are literally grasping at straws when it comes to finding things to be used against him? Do we allow BG bathroom breaks? He could be using that time to work on PACE.

What he chooses to work on is his business. Yeah it would be great it he would go through PACE but who are we to set his agenda?
 
Messages
2,087
??????

We don't know BG's overall workload whereas NEJM has editors whose job is to work on such projects.

A bit harsh. Are we so desperate to criticize him that we are literally grasping at straws when it comes to finding things to be used as a criticism? Do we allow BG bathroom breaks? He could be using that time to work on PACE.

What he chooses to work on is his business. Yeah it would be great it he would go through PACE but who are we to set his agenda?
I'm just pointing out the obvious.
Apologies if it happens to clash with anyone's image of busy Ben ( and his team )

Have you read the attached ?

Still think ben is too busy ? Or maybe he doesn't want to upset his friend.
 

Attachments

  • 2015seriousabsurb.pdf
    99.4 KB · Views: 34

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
It's clear that SW has a fixation on Schadenfreude.
Not everyone is always trying to tear others down or see them embarrassed but for those in positions of authority the adage: To whom much is given much is expected comes to mind.

SW is among the world population extremely privileged. His work carry's a great deal of weight and even possibly affects many lives so embarrassment is his problem--too bad--if you accept all the kudos, accolades, gifts, honours you have to accept when you're wrong you're going to be called out.

(I know that wasn't exactly the point of the post PDF post) But it certainly shows his fear of the power of others to call him on this where he must have thought he was untouchable.
 

joshualevy

Senior Member
Messages
158
Strange how BG has said he doesn't have time to look at PACE trial yet from his recent letters to NEJM he states :

Furthermore, from our extensive experience it takes between 30 minutes and 5 hours to obtain the relevant documents, cross-check the pre-specified and reported outcomes, and assess whether or not these have been reported correctly.

I'm not sure that it matters, but this is only part of the work in a COMPare evaluation. First of all, they have two separate people do the work described above, second they have a meeting to compare notes (which involves several people, so even if short takes several person hours), and finally they have various paperwork tasks that need doing. My guess is that "in real life" it takes them four times as long as described above for the whole process.

If you want, you can try applying COMPare to PACE yourself. Why not? The protocol is on-line and you can even see examples of how they have applied it. But I don't think PACE will fail as spectacularly as many people think. COMPare is very specific that it is OK to change the outcome measures as long as you document the change and justify it. (And my memory is that the PACE authors did a lot of changing and justifying.)

Although I will say that I did apply COMPare to two studies (in another field), and then I stopped because I did not think it was worth doing. The bottom line is that COMPare measures if researchers reported on what they said they were going to report on, but what I care about more is: did they report the important information? Did they measure what mattered? COMPare doesn't make those kinds of value judgements.
 
Messages
13,774
(And my memory is that the PACE authors did a lot of changing and justifying.)

I wonder how COMPare would assess the inaccurate justifications used by PACE? Or when they were accurate, but justified simply be their preference, eg:

Wecon-sidered scores of 1 (‘very much better’) or 2 (‘much better’) as evidence of the process of recovery, rather than our original protocol threshold of a score of 1 only, because we considered that participants rating their overall health as ‘much better’ represented the process of recovery.
 
Messages
13,774
While BG would be a logical choice as an ally, the fact remains that he is uninterested and I think it would be better to focus our time on new allies, rather than BG.

I don't think he is a logical ally. I think it's funny how clearly his professed ideals would seem to lead him to speaking out against PACE, but I don't think that there was ever any chance of him being helpful for patients.
 
Messages
15,786
I don't think he is a logical ally. I think it's funny how clearly his professed ideals would seem to lead him to speaking out against PACE, but I don't think that there was ever any chance of him being helpful for patients.
Agreed. He's always been Wessely's boy.
 

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
I don't think he is a logical ally. I think it's funny how clearly his professed ideals would seem to lead him to speaking out against PACE, but I don't think that there was ever any chance of him being helpful for patients.

It seems almost as if he continues his enthusiasm for randomisation, as described in Wessely's article, to his choice of subjects for intervention.

I loved Wessely's title-"Finding the serious in the absurd". He just needs to turn it round and he has the title for his next thoughts on PACE.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
Goldacre is giving a talk on Sunday in Toronto for the Centre for Inquiry Canada:

http://centreforinquiry.ca/dr-ben-goldacre-in-toronto-sunday-may-15th/

I plan to attend. I'm assuming there will be a q and a period.

What would be a good / productive / provocative question for him around ME?

BG claimed to JC on twitter that he had not read the PACE papers. This seems highly unlikely ( he is a liar).

1. BG is a psychiatrist and should as per good medical practice keep up to date with the field. Although ME is not psychiatric every other psychiatrist has got involved and stuck their noses in ME - why is he the only one not to?

2. Ask whether he has now read the PACE trial given it is mentioned as one of the biggest medical scandals of bad science and if not why not?

3. Why is he lecturing around the world on bad science given the PACE trial (epitome of bad science) is in his own backyard when he was at Kings college, London (home to Trudy Chalder and his PHD mentor Simon Wessely)

4. BG dismissed the PACE scandal as a "spat" and dismissed all concerns by the community as talking of "conspiracy" and he didn't want to get involved. Well ask him if this well referenced and evidence based report can be still dismissed as conspiracy?

http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/library/type/pdfs/in-the-expectation-of-recovery.html

5. Tell BG he is the biggest hypocrite around!