Conversation

Here is the series of questions I put to

@WesselyS

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

Replying to

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

Simon Wessely

@WesselyS

Replying to

@JanetEastham

It's been pointed out my answer was ambiguous. To be clear the change was before the analysis. It's on page 2228. Apols for any confusion

10:50 AM · Apr 1, 2017Twitter for iPhone

Replying to

and

Simon I've analysed SF-36 physical function sub scales and normal pop - 85 is correct for gen pop. 60 is v.disabled?

Replying to

and

But mean age in the #PACEtrial was 38; it wasn't the general population. Real sf-36 score should have been 100 not 85 let alone 60 or more

Show replies

Replying to

and

...it doesn't matter they changed it before analysis/ which they shouldn't, it's nonsense 60+ = recovery

Replying to

and

In their unblinded #PACEtrial as you said they saw that CBT and GET were not effective hence the change of Endpoints #ProfessionalMisconduct

Replying to

and

13 special commentaries will outline views & perspectives on this very trial Jr. of Health Psych - science in action

Replying to

and

"I don't get out of bed unless I've a good trial to critique - I'm a methodological epidemiologist"

Replying to

and

you proved my point when you said 'no one would have recovered' (

@85

) but natural recovery

Replying to

Iv a niggle tht wont go away.Wld like to u/stand th'context of a patient being called a bastard

Replying to

and

Before the analyses conducted for the 2011 Lancet paper? Their response to an FOI request for the protocol recovery results indicates not.

Replying to

and

.the facts are clear, my answer wasn't. I seem to have started a hare running which can now go back to its nest. Apols for the confusion

Show replies