Tribunal orders QMUL to release anonymised PACE data 16 Aug 2016

Wolfiness

Wolfiness

Activity Level 0
Messages
482
Location
UK
Sorry Tom, does the 59% and 61% refer to the amount of improvement in the individual conditions of the people who did improve?
 
BruceInOz

BruceInOz

Senior Member
Messages
172
Location
Tasmania
Wolfiness said:
Sorry Tom, does the 59% and 61% refer to the amount of improvement in the individual conditions of the people who did improve?
Click to expand...
No, it is the number of people who met their criteria for improvement. The criteria was much laxer in the 2011 Lancet article than the protocol.
 
U

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
Wolfiness said:
I've never seen this article… PACE 2011 reported 22% each for CBT and GET, no?
Click to expand...

The lancet paper was the original 2011 paper which reported on new primary outcomes. The original outcome values have just been released.

One of the original primary outcomes was their definition of improved which they never published. They did an alternative secondary analysis which included improved but using much weaker criteria (I think changing 1 or 2 question answers counted as improved). So these new figures give an idea of the exaggeration in the lancet process.

The 22% comes from a later recovery paper published in psychological medicine. Where they claim that GET, CBT cure 22% of patents
 
Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Calling people that want sound science "terrorists" seems to be a trend among psychiatrists:

Fiske is referring to a group of people that she sees as dangerous and fanatical. She labels them “terrorists” to suggest that their tactics — publishing criticisms on Twitter and Facebook — are outside of the rules of war that have stood for years in the field of psychological research.
She also calls this loosely-defined group the “self-appointed data police” and argues that their social media activism hurts careers and undermines science. She writes that their conclusions, often published without peer-review, are suspect and that they have so poisoned the climate of psychology as to drive people out of the field. She doesn’t name names.
Click to expand...

OMG, she should have been invited to testify in the PACE trial court.

When psychology/psychiatry decided to break from psychoanalysis' fanciful and baseless theories and enter the field of "scientific psychology", they just adopted apparent scientic process, like a child playing doctor. And real scientists didn't look that much. These psychiatrists/psychologists have been able to go on for years with this pseudo-science, truly believing they were scientists. And they can't even start to understand that what they're doing is pure rubbish.

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/s...rce=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer?r=US&IR=T
 
A.B.

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Cheshire said:
She also calls this loosely-defined group the “self-appointed data police” and argues that their social media activism hurts careers and undermines science.
Click to expand...

I am sure it hurts careers of fraudsters.

I am sure it undermines pseudoscience.

I am getting the impression some people who think of themselves as researchers have been chasing positive results through any means possible and have ended up in pseudoscience territory without even realising.
 
Marky90

Marky90

Science breeds knowledge, opinion breeds ignorance
Messages
1,253
Machiarrini is basically a murderer. 6 out of the 7 patients who received the plastic trachea died within one year. He CONTINUED giving the plastic tracheas even when he knew they all collapsed due to tissue pressure. Knowing they all developed fatal infections. He even wanted to push more "research" when they all were dead! The only survivor incidentally managed to remove the trachea, or he would be dead as well. In his publications he made it look like there was no side effects when they actually were fatal. The fact that Lancet protects Karolinska and Machiarrini in blatant murder is deeply disturbing and sickening. It`s also messed up that this is not a case of criminal law

In many ways this is similar to PACE, but here the patients die. Lancet don`t give a ****, that should be a documentary on it`s own. They hide in the background causing much damage all over the world
 
slysaint

slysaint

Senior Member
Messages
2,125
Sean said:
Richard Horton, chief editor of the Lancet.
Click to expand...
About The Lancet medical journal
The Lancet is committed to applying scientific knowledge to improve health and advance human progress and this is as true today as it was when the first issue was published on October 5 1823.
With a voice for all people
When you publish with The Lancet you’re joining a community that believes that everyone has the right to the highest attainable standard of health and that care should be equitable and just.
With initiatives well beyond publication
We are committed to the medical science and public health communities and actively engage in advocacy that stimulates further thinking and dialogue around important issues affecting us all.
With independence from any society or political body
Our authors and readers benefit from the fact that we are unencumbered by the constraints of societal affiliation or conflicting agendas.
With editors who will strengthen the quality of your work
We care about our authors and work hard to develop a collaborative relationship throughout the publication process."

Yeah, righto_O
 
C

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
slysaint said:
We are committed to the medical science and public health communities and actively engage in advocacy that stimulates further thinking and dialogue around important issues affecting us all.
Click to expand...

"Us all" would presumably refer to the "medical science and public health communities".

There is a very noticeable silence on where patients fit into all this.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back