Conversation

Here is the series of questions I put to

@WesselyS

at the #StandingupforScience panel discussion last night. This tweet is one of three.

Janet Eastham

@JanetEastham

Replying to

@JanetEastham

This is the third and final part of the questioning #StandingupforScience

3:18 PM · Mar 30, 2017Twitter Web Client

Replying to

thanks for your bravery and eloquent criticism . The responses to your questions are almost unbelievable.

Replying to

Really good. Thanks for doing it.

Replying to

Interesting how he implies TSC approval of change to recovery criteria - PACE authors have never claimed this themselves.

Replying to

and

FOI request for this information from Matthees classed as vexatious:

whatdotheyknow.com

Timing of changes to PACE Trial recovery criteria - a Freedom of Information request to Queen Mary...

Dear Queen Mary, University of London, The PACE Trial protocol was published in 2007 and included a criteria for 'recovery' from CFS, [1] a secondary outcome which later underwent substantial...

Show replies

Replying to

yes

3%-10% (depending on criteria) ME/CFS patients recover spontaneously and that was reflected in the null result.

Replying to

I laughed out loud at exactly the point the audience laughed!

Replying to

and

but presumably for a different reason?

Show replies

Replying to

Thank You.

Replying to

Is he saying its ok to change recovery criteria as they wanted people to recover. I'd like to sf36 answers giving 60 &considered recovered.

Replying to

It's clear that

doesn't have a clue about his research incompetence