Brave Sir Prof Wessely discusses death threats 29th March 2017

trishrhymes

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
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.
 
A.B.

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
trishrhymes said:
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?
Click to expand...

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

All these changes were made before any outcome data were analyzed (i.e. they were pre-specified), and were all approved by the independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring and Ethics committee.
Click to expand...

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".
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
A.B. said:
Yes he is, and this conflicts with the PACE authors who insist the changes to outcomes were made before anyone had analyzed the data:

All these changes were made before any outcome data were analyzed (i.e. they were pre-specified), and were all approved by the independent Trial Steering Committee and Data Monitoring and Ethics committee.
Click to expand...

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".
Click to expand...

That was only referring to the primary outcomes in the 2011 Lancet paper, not the recovery criteria in the 2013 Psychological Medicine paper.
 
A.B.

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Esther12 said:
That was only referring to the primary outcomes in the 2011 Lancet paper, not the recovery criteria in the 2013 Psychological Medicine paper.
Click to expand...

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:

We addressed this criticism two years ago in correspondence that followed the paper (White et al, 2013b), and the changes were fully described and explained in the paper itself (White et al, 2013). We changed the thresholds for recovery from the original protocol for our secondary analysis paper on recovery for three, not four, of the variables, since we believed that the revised thresholds better reflected recovery. For instance, we included those who felt “much” (and “very much”) better in their overall health as one of the five criteria that defined recovery. This was done before the analysis occurred (i.e. it was pre-specified).
Click to expand...
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
A.B. said:
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:

This was done before the analysis occurred (i.e. it was pre-specified).
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

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.
 
Molly98

Molly98

Senior Member
Messages
576
AndyPR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
AndyPR said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
D

daisybell

Senior Member
Messages
1,613
Location
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.
 
Jonathan Edwards

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
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.
 
I

Invisible Woman

Senior Member
Messages
1,267
daisybell said:
What I find so disturbing is that SW can really continue to believe he is right
Click to expand...

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.

Jonathan Edwards said:
He is either very stupid or deliberately prevaricating.
Click to expand...

I don't know about stupid but he sure is very, very cunning.
 
A

arewenearlythereyet

Senior Member
Messages
1,478
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.
 
U

UKmum

Messages
87
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back