Correspondence in Private Eye on PACE Trial
- Thread starter Dolphin
- Start date
@Dolphin thanks for posting this.
I suppose one can look at this as only 33.33% of comments are supportive of things related to the PACE Trial and resulting work (presentations, studies, papers, etc.).
A 33% support rate, like a 33% success rate in a trial isn't a ringing endorsement by any means. (Though both of those are higher than what we know recovery rates from this trial to be.)
I suppose one can look at this as only 33.33% of comments are supportive of things related to the PACE Trial and resulting work (presentations, studies, papers, etc.).
A 33% support rate, like a 33% success rate in a trial isn't a ringing endorsement by any means. (Though both of those are higher than what we know recovery rates from this trial to be.)
BurnA
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,087
It seems to be the standard line now from Wessly and the PACE trial PIs that CBT and GET are safe and effective treatments.
They are of course lying and there is no evidence from the PACE trial to back up this claim.
It is important to point this out because it is a deliberate lie. It's not a confusion or muddling of the facts, this is a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth by making unfounded claims.
They are of course lying and there is no evidence from the PACE trial to back up this claim.
It is important to point this out because it is a deliberate lie. It's not a confusion or muddling of the facts, this is a deliberate attempt to conceal the truth by making unfounded claims.
Tom Kindlon
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,734
Has anyone got the email address for correspondence? Perhaps it was mentioned in one of the earlier threads?
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
The White reply is spinning away as hard as possible. Probably good for us to have them so clearly misrepresenting things?
Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
I couldn't see one specifically for letters to be published, this is their editorial address:
I agree. White's letter clearly illustrates what kind of crap we've been up against.
I think anyone can recognise the arrogance and contempt for the views of other researchers in the above statement. Nice of him to demonstrate it to the world for us.
In dutch we have a saying "wij van WC-eend". Meaning "we from WC-eend". It's from a commercial promoting their product by saying, we from WC-eend recommend WC-eend. That pretty much sums it all up imo.
Eend means duck btw, so it's like a toiletcleaning duck. Ah if only they'd get their heads out of the toilet.
They're got their heads jammed somewhere else too.
Jonathan Edwards
"Gibberish"
- Messages
- 5,256
The remarkable thing is that Peter White seems to think that what matter are his conclusions.The job of the scientist is to provide evidence from which others can draw whatever conclusions they like. The value of paper has nothing to do with the conclusions of the authors. It ls the way it helps the reader to form their own conclusions about a scientific question. The fact that the reanalysis made no difference to the authors conclusions, apart from being of no interest to anyone, demonstrates further the inability of the authors to understand how science works.
adreno
PR activist
- Messages
- 4,841
Only if there is ever going to be accountability, which so far there hasn't been.
So if the PACE trial may be likened to the toilet of science (and I think it may), Peter White & co are a small band of lavatory attendants who regularly turn up to duck the issues by getting under the rim to erase and sanitize any smells that might get up people's noses. They can keep frantically scrubbing all they want, one day their bottle will be empty and the stench will become impossible to ignore.In dutch we have a saying "wij van WC-eend". Meaning "we from WC-eend". It's from a commercial promoting their product by saying, we from WC-eend recommend WC-eend. That pretty much sums it all up imo.
Eend means duck btw, so it's like a toiletcleaning duck. Ah if only they'd get their heads out of the toilet.
Last edited:
Well, if any conclusion other than his and his circle count, he's screwed.
Well it might still increase the likelihood of their views at last being sidelined, discounted and ignored, even if they are never held accountable.
So far. We are not quite at the accountability stage yet. The biomed stuff needs to firm up a bit, and the political wheels turn a little further. But getting closer every day.
Wow, White and Chalder are clowns. So if they publicate their reanalysis that makes it oke? Why didn't they do this in the first place when patiënts and scientists asked for it? They didn't share their data to other unbiased scientists who asked for it, they didn't protect the patiënts data because they already shared it without permission with many other friends of them like Cochrane etc... they lie again and again. I really don't understand how these people can get away with it, it is fraude!
Last edited:
lansbergen
Senior Member
- Messages
- 2,512
About time somebody pointed that out.
Keith Geraghty
Senior Member
- Messages
- 491
The PACE team are out and out not telling the complete story about data sharing - I requested access to the PACE data in 2014 and 2015 - they ignored my emails at first and then acknowledged my request after I spoke to Prof Holgate of the CMRC and made him aware of their lack of reply - I then had a brief reply from the PACE team saying that my request was turned down (no explanation given). When I emailed asking for an explanation I was again ignored. Later I returned to Holgate and informed him - he suggested contacting the MRC. I didnt, but I did inform the PACE authors (eg Prof White) that if he refused to email me a reason, I may have to do this. Within weeks a complaint was lodged at my University suggesting I was being unprofessional - by Prof Peter White. The whole time he didnt email me or communciate with me in any way. Thats how professional they are. Oh, they used passages of PR (this site) as evidence of me being unprofesional.
The PACE team have not shared data with many other scientists who've asked for the data - they have shared with people they work with, and they only shared with patients when forced to do so by a Tribunal.
Their letter to Private Eye is yet another attempt to control the narrative in their favour. I find it deeply disturbing.
The PACE team have not shared data with many other scientists who've asked for the data - they have shared with people they work with, and they only shared with patients when forced to do so by a Tribunal.
Their letter to Private Eye is yet another attempt to control the narrative in their favour. I find it deeply disturbing.
Last edited: