Esther12
Senior Member
- Messages
- 13,774
Just read this - and again, like the Jason piece, it opens up another avenue of criticism. Good to see. Thanks a lot to Lubet.
I don't really have much to say about it, other than that I am looking foreward to the response from the PACE team. I suspect that they'd try to point to the independent over-sight of the PACE trial... would be nice to get some of those responsible for this oversight more actively engaged in the discussion imo. Looks to me as if they've got some explaining to do.
I'm not sure how solid all the work on researcher biases is, some of it looks a bit biased itself to me. Would be funny if the PACE lot tried to challenge that though, as it generally seems much more solid than the work on emotional/coginitive distortions amongst CFS patients.
I don't really have much to say about it, other than that I am looking foreward to the response from the PACE team. I suspect that they'd try to point to the independent over-sight of the PACE trial... would be nice to get some of those responsible for this oversight more actively engaged in the discussion imo. Looks to me as if they've got some explaining to do.
I'm not sure how solid all the work on researcher biases is, some of it looks a bit biased itself to me. Would be funny if the PACE lot tried to challenge that though, as it generally seems much more solid than the work on emotional/coginitive distortions amongst CFS patients.
Last edited: