Volunteer opportunity: Organizing Phoenix Rising articles
This section contains all the articles that have been published by Phoenix Rising over the years. As you will see if you browse here, some of the articles are outdated--either the research has been superseded or retracted or the article features an event or campaign that is now in...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

BMJ e-letter: "PACE trial primary outcomes at 2.5 years" (by Robert Courtney)

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Dolphin, Nov 6, 2015.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,737
    Likes:
    28,348
    [The same points could be made about a lot of the coverage of the recent PACE Trial follow-up paper]

    http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h5771/rr-0

     
    MeSci, Effi, Valentijn and 14 others like this.
  2. adreno

    adreno PR activist

    Messages:
    4,841
    Likes:
    11,074
    Sigh. Why is it necessary to point out the obvious. Peer review is a joke.
     
  3. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,099
    Likes:
    17,227
    Really, this is what the BMJ editorial itself should have pointed out. It's sick.
     
    MeSci, Valentijn, Woolie and 6 others like this.
  4. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes:
    16,567
    Only the type of incestuous peer review done in psychiatry. They all believe (or claim to believe) the same falsehoods and "review" each other's work based on false assumptions and belief instead of scientific rigor. If they pointed out the flaws in each others' work, it would bring their own work into question and they don't want to do that. So they let other researchers' garbage through with the understanding that their lies will be allowed through also. Peer review is not supposed to work like that, and doesn't in many other fields.
     
  5. SOC

    SOC Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,839
    Likes:
    16,567
    It's become clear over the last couple of weeks who or what passes as a "science editor" in the UK. Apparently knowledge or training in science is not required. So I suppose it's not surprising (although it is appalling) that a BMJ editor wouldn't catch something as basic as this.
     
    Daisymay likes this.
  6. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,737
    Likes:
    28,348
    Just a small point to say that the BMJ article wasn't a peer-reviewed article as far as I know. They also have news items.
     
    Valentijn and SOC like this.
  7. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,263
    Likes:
    18,043
    And they have the gall to accuse patients of indulging in a circle-jerk?

    Not to mention the compulsory ethicectomy.
     
    Valentijn and SOC like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page