May 12, 2017 Is International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day
International ME/CFS and FM Awareness Day is May 12th, 2017. Jody Smith shares some information about upcoming events and ways you can be heard ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Brave Sir Prof Wessely discusses death threats 29th March 2017

Discussion in 'Action Alerts and Advocacy' started by Countrygirl, Mar 1, 2017.

  1. trishrhymes

    trishrhymes Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,154
    Likes:
    17,894
    SW: 'they changed the recovery measures because they realised they had gone too extreme and they would have the problem that nobody would recover'

    Laughter from audience.

    ......................

    Oh, yes, I'm splitting my sides laughing here SW.

    Is he admitting they realised by looking at the data coming in during the trial that 'nobody would recover'? How else did they know this? After all, they presumably set up the Protocol recovery criteria on the basis of previous smaller trials, so they must have thought they would get a good 'recovery' rate - so what changed?

    .........................

    Has anyone seen or read SW's book on Clinical Trials in Psychiatry? I'd be curious to see whether his own writing damns him. But I'm damned if I'm going to waste £80 on buying it.
     
    Solstice, MEMum, dangermouse and 17 others like this.
  2. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes:
    23,207
    Yes he is, and this conflicts with the PACE authors who insist the changes to outcomes were made before anyone had analyzed the data:

    http://www.virology.ws/2015/10/30/pace-trial-investigators-respond-to-david-tuller/

    I think a pro would say "Wessely admits PACE recovery figures were obtained by p-hacking".
     
    Solstice, MEMum, dangermouse and 13 others like this.
  3. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,526
    That was only referring to the primary outcomes in the 2011 Lancet paper, not the recovery criteria in the 2013 Psychological Medicine paper.
     
  4. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes:
    23,207
    Yes, that particular quote refers to the 2011 paper so it doesn't apply here, but they also claim that the 2013 recovery criteria were pre-specified:

     
    Valentijn likes this.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,526
    That quote from them seems very evasive, particularly given their history of twisting language. Of course the analysis was decided upon before it occured. They did not say that they decided upon their recovery criteria before they had conducted other unblinded analyses of their data.
     
  6. adreno

    adreno PR activist

    Messages:
    4,841
    Likes:
    11,064
    Don't worry, he will soon be irrelevant.
     
    Valentijn, Webdog, A.B. and 1 other person like this.
  7. AndyPR

    AndyPR Senior Member

    The saddest thing about that quote is the (theoretically pro-science) audience laughing at it. Perhaps they couldn't believe what they were hearing, perhaps it was shocked and embarrassed laughter, that's what I'm hoping anyway.
     
    Solstice, MEMum, dangermouse and 13 others like this.
  8. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes:
    23,207
    How a message is received depends on the social status of the speaker. A knight who is "standing up for science" can afford to make a joke out of p-hacking.
     
    anniekim, dangermouse, Jan and 3 others like this.
  9. Molly98

    Molly98 Senior Member

    Messages:
    556
    Likes:
    4,534
    I think this is very revealing of the person he is and also how even scientific people are highly influenced by someone with titles and in a position of authority.

    It goes to say that he can say the most nonsensical things and people will fawn at his feet. If he was an undergraduate or non-scientist, the audience's reaction would be a complete contrast and their logical rational minds would kick in.

    He is saying publically that the results were changed in order to show recovery when recovery was not there, he is saying the results were fiddled and the audience just laugh and smile obediently. It's quite disturbing to see the power of authority and the power of suggestion in action working so well on otherwise intelligent people.

    Let us hope that once out of his presence, they go home and think, fuck did that guy actually say that and I actually just laughed along. Probably not, though.
     
    MEMum, ukxmrv, lemonworld and 13 others like this.
  10. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,585
    Likes:
    18,193
    I don't think they are a pro-science audience - although they would like to think of themselves as such. Most scientists I know are highly analytic and would tear apart the level of reasoning displayed or at least ask about it. Feels more like people who want to be associated with science.
     
    Solstice, MEMum, dangermouse and 10 others like this.
  11. daisybell

    daisybell Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,603
    Likes:
    7,384
    New Zealand
    What I find so disturbing is that SW can really continue to believe he is right and people will lap it up when there are now over one hundred dissenting academic voices putting names to letters... is he too stupid to see, or just so fixed in his view of himself as all-powerful and always right that he actually isn't capable of critical self-reflection?
    Nobody that incapable of reviewing their own thoughts and actions should be in any position in medicine. They are a danger to others.
     
    MEMum, dangermouse, ukxmrv and 8 others like this.
  12. Yabisa

    Yabisa

    Messages:
    43
    Likes:
    121
    This guy really needs a psychiatrist himself.

    His behaviour at the conference , laughing at the patients , insulting people and showing nothing about empathy , betrays him as a true psychopath.
     
    Mesurfer, Jan, Cornishbird and 2 others like this.
  13. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards "Gibberish"

    Messages:
    5,255
    Likes:
    32,048
    It is interesting that he seems to use the analogy of measuring ESR or swollen joints (the measures in rheumatoid arthritis) as objective measures - presumably reflecting the fact that he had read my commentary just before the talk and felt he needed to counterattack? What is so ridiculous is that he is completely blanking out the fact that I said subjective criteria were fine as long as the study was blinded. He is either very stupid or deliberately prevaricating.
     
    Solstice, MEMum, anniekim and 24 others like this.
  14. Invisible Woman

    Invisible Woman Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,212
    Likes:
    7,430
    He doesn't care if he's right or wrong: he just cares if others with influence perceive him to be right or wrong. As long as the gravy train, knighthoods and awards keep rolling in who cares about reality, morality, justice and integrity.

    I don't know about stupid but he sure is very, very cunning.
     
    MEMum, anniekim, dangermouse and 8 others like this.
  15. arewenearlythereyet

    arewenearlythereyet Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,478
    Likes:
    7,586
    I think he just skims over facts on a need to know basis. In his world the decision is simple..... If he can get away with blagging his way through it instead of putting the work in, then why not?. Much easier to use power and influence.

    Of course you have to have: an off moral compass, an overinflated ego, and have previously created a delusional world in which to live in to make this work.
     
    MEMum, dangermouse, ukxmrv and 7 others like this.
  16. lilpink

    lilpink Senior Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes:
    5,690
    UK
    Nice to see someone who has a critical mind and a clear eye at Channel 4 Dispatches.

     
  17. lilpink

    lilpink Senior Member

    Messages:
    938
    Likes:
    5,690
    UK
    This thread On Janet Eastham's Twitter feed is also useful...

     
    Last edited: Mar 31, 2017
  18. UKmum

    UKmum

    Messages:
    87
    Likes:
    601
    SW: 'they changed the recovery measures because they realised they had gone too extreme and they would have the problem that nobody would recover'

    What a shame they didn't do the right thing and report that fact. It would save the NHS a lot of money on CBT/GET therapies. They realised no one would recover from treatment so fixed the results and still went on to recommend it?

    I think they have been exposed to too much CBT and can't distinguish between reality and wishful thinking.
     
  19. Joh

    Joh Inactivist

    Messages:
    841
    Likes:
    4,912
    Germany
    Yep, I wonder what they consider to be "too extreme" for people in their 30ies... Being able to work? Sports, a social life? Managing household tasks? :cautious:
     
  20. John Mac

    John Mac Senior Member

    Messages:
    321
    Likes:
    1,532
    Liverpool UK
    Does this mean C4 Dispatches are doing a programme on ME/CFS?
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page