A.B.
Senior Member
- Messages
- 3,780
Err - how does that work.
It's clearly wrong - but how do you come to the conclusion that it proves intent.
The paper may provide evidence that White was aware that the calculation they used was misleading.
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Err - how does that work.
It's clearly wrong - but how do you come to the conclusion that it proves intent.
The only publication that might be relevant that I can find from Peter White in 2007 is this one
Can anyone wield the magic wand to get us the full paper?
Here's what David Tuller wrote on Facebook as @Esther12 linked to above:Yes I think you might have found the correct paper here Trish, well done
Anyone? (!)
Conclusion: Significant improvement following CBT is probable and a full recovery is possible. Sharing this information with patients can raise the expectations of the treatment, which may enhance outcomes without raising false hopes.
Bookmark the post (small bookmark text at the bottom of the post). You can remember that you bookmarked it, right?
The other study used similar criteria
and domains for recovery (Knoop et al. 2007), but the
definition for normal range used was the more liberal
population mean-2S.D.rather than the more con-
servative 1S.D. that we used
The aims of this study were to: (a)define oper-
ationalized criteria for recovery on relevant domains,
(b) calculate the proportions of trial participants
meeting each of these individual criteria in each
treatment arm, (c) calculate the proportion of trial
participants meeting all the recovery criteria to pro-
vide a comprehensive and conservative definition
of recovery in each treatment arm, (d) compare the...
Well, not in a jail perhaps But it would suggest a bit of a disassociation from reality.Not, alas the 'we can lock you up' commonly understood sense.
Broadmoor?Well, not in a jail perhaps
[my bold]I'll be honest? The fact that they MODIFIED criteria to fit the end result (not the desired test results), and all of the shenanigans to prevent data release, to attempt to slander critics, there's no way there were NO adverse affects (so that means they discredited the adverse effects OR HID THEM), etc, etc... I can't see how this can be tied to incompetence. I agree it could have started that way... but there is no way at this time there wasn't an intent to provide FALSE INFORMATION for the purpose of PROFIT.
Does that meet the criteria for Fraud?
[My bold]As I currently understand it any infraction on the scientific side is called scientific misconduct. Its the popular description by the public and press when they talk about fraud.
In scientific fraud, again my interpretation, there is intent to decieve.
Fraud includes intent to deceive, and though I think there is a strong case for this it will be very hard to prove. That is not the case with scientific misconduct.
This is an evolving discussion. The 2007 paper changes the basis for argument specifically for PACE. Intent to deceive is usually very hard to prove, but the 2007 paper may well be that proof for PACE. As I have been saying for years, you cannot demonstrate intentions without a paper trail or whistle-blower. This might well be the paper trail.However, in an earlier post Alex, you wrote the above.