"Rehmeyer makes statisticians’ 'jaws drop' over PACE"

[TiredSam]

I have an impossible time believing no somatic diseases actually exist.

I have an impossible time believing that they do exist, because the proponents of somatic diseases have never produced a sufficient level of evidence to support their claims. The onus is on those who make claims to prove them. Until they have, why would anyone choose to "believe" in somatic diseases?

 

[alex3619]

Somatic diseases are of the body. Like chickenpox. Psychosomatic diseases are of the mind, and none is proven.

 

[TiredSam]

Somatic diseases are of the body. Like chickenpox. Psychosomatic diseases are of the mind, and none is proven.

Yeah that thing, somatoform, functional, however they're branding it these days ...

 

[Bob]

I have an impossible time believing no [psycho]somatic diseases actually exist.

It's an interesting area of medicine. I don't have enough personal insight into it, but I've been persuaded by others to be extremely sceptical about most claims of psychosomatic illnesses, including non epileptic seizures. I suspect that non epileptic seizures are simply an atypical form of epilepsy (which is probably a highly heterogeneous illness with a wide spectrum of presentations) that's been hijacked by the psychosomatic lobby.
I think your own text expresses my own scepticism perfectly...

...a psychosomatic illness can't be disproved until you can show one of the symptoms has a biologic origin. They dismiss any other direct biologic findings as a result of neuro immune changes derived from irrational thoughts/beliefs.

If we have a psychosomatic illness because a physical illness cannot be objectively shown, how is a psychosomatic illness any more valid since it cannot be objectively shown?

 

[BurnA]

So now that the Royal Statistical Society cannot plead ignorance, it puts the ball in their court to start making some noise when they get home, or are they going to remain silent and be part of the same corrupt system that has prevailed in the UK for too long?

Tweet from CEO of royal statistical society...

Tribunal was right to order release of chronic fatigue trial data https://t.co/kIhZ7HcE31 @ConversationUK #openscience

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/770507468015296512

 

[sarah darwins]

Tweet from CEO of royal statistical society...

That seems like rather important news. Thank you for sharing it.

 

[Yogi]

Tweet from CEO of royal statisthawociety...

Tribunal was right to order release of chronic fatigue trial data https://t.co/kIhZ7HcE31 @ConversationUK #openscience

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/770507468015296512

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/770700395454889985

Directors
Hetan Shah, Executive Director

Hetan is responsible for the overall strategy and management of the Royal Statistical Society. His previous roles have included running the national charity 'Think Global' and senior think tank roles. His interests include evidence informed policymaking, big data, international development and sustainability. Hetan is visiting senior research fellow at the Kings Policy Institute, Kings College London. He is chair of the Friends Provident Foundation and a non executive director of the Higher Education Statistics Agency. He is an Honorary Vice-President of the Geographical Association and is on the Steering Group of the Natural Capital Initiative. Hetan is also a member of the National Statistician's Data Ethics Committee.

http://www.rss.org.uk/RSS/About/Abo...spx?hkey=fa02b439-4aab-43b8-a202-1402e82ac40b

Thanks you @ClarkEllis for that. This is important. Good if RSS can keep communication open with PWME and further examine and analyse PACE trial.

They previously weren't too interested in Prof Hooper's complaint as Nigel hawkes was on board then. See history here:

http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...lm-hooper-a-critique-of-the-pace-trial.13553/

 

[BurnA]

Hetan is visiting senior research fellow at the Kings Policy Institute, Kings College London.

 

[BurnA]

His interests include evidence informed policymaking, big data, international development and sustainability.

 

[BurnA]

Just thought I'd add this here too

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781046168591724544

 

[TiredSam]

Nice to see him hopping onto the bandwagon now that it's starting to roll.

 

[BurnA]

Nice to see him hopping onto the bandwagon now that it's starting to roll.

Yes - the more the merrier !

 

[JohnCB]

Just thought I'd add this here too

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/781046168591724544

The article is in the print version of The Times, at the top of page 24. I thought the tone was unnecessarily muted and allowed White to get away with saying that the re-analysis used a more conservative definition of recovery without any mention that this was the original planned definition. The piece also included "At times the dispute has become so bitter that scientists have complained of death threats." And it concluded with

He was defended by George Lewith, professor of primary care at Southampton University, who was not involved in the original research. He said the field was in danger of becoming politicised. “I’ve worked in the area for ten years, and I’ve been appalled by what has happened. There’s a small group of people with fixed and opposing views, and they want to torture the data until it proves what they believe. I think there’s a great danger people will stop doing research because it’s so confrontational.”

 

[BurnA]

The article is in the print version of The Times, at the top of page 24. I thought the tone was unnecessarily muted and allowed White to get away with saying that the re-analysis used a more conservative definition of recovery without any mention that this was the original planned definition. The piece also included "At times the dispute has become so bitter that scientists have complained of death threats." And it concluded with

Yes this article is being discussed on the thread
http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...overy-reanalysis-post-links-here.46956/page-4

I just thought I'd post the tweet here because it was relevant to previous posts on this thread.

 

[Esther12]

The article is in the print version of The Times, at the top of page 24. I thought the tone was unnecessarily muted and allowed White to get away with saying that the re-analysis used a more conservative definition of recovery without any mention that this was the original planned definition. The piece also included "At times the dispute has become so bitter that scientists have complained of death threats." And it concluded with

He was defended by George Lewith, professor of primary care at Southampton University, who was not involved in the original research. He said the field was in danger of becoming politicised. “I’ve worked in the area for ten years, and I’ve been appalled by what has happened. There’s a small group of people with fixed and opposing views, and they want to torture the data until it proves what they believe. I think there’s a great danger people will stop doing research because it’s so confrontational.”

Just saw Lewith defending an acupuncture trial here: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-acupuncture-to-treat-colic/

 

[sarah darwins]

Just saw Lewith defending an acupuncture trial here: http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-acupuncture-to-treat-colic/

A defence which is then utterly demolished by a professor of complimentary medicine. Heck, I wish Lewith had marked my biology O'level — I might have got an A. He doesn't seem to seem too fussy about how you conduct a trial, which was my attitude to high school science.

Just curious to note that there are 3 contributors on that page and only 2 of them declare no conflicts of interest. No entry for Lewith in that section .... not that I'm suggesting anything, obviously.