Here is the series of questions I put to at the #StandingupforScience panel discussion last night. This tweet is one of three.
Conversation
Replying to
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
8
Before the analyses conducted for the 2011 Lancet paper? Their response to an FOI request for the protocol recovery results indicates not.
1
.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
If clear, could you show when PACE decided it would not release results for protocol recovery criteria and what approval was sought/gained?
1
1
Is there any evidence you could share on this matter? To me, it seems that the facts have not been made clear.
Quote Tweet
Replying to @WesselyS and @JanetEastham
If clear, could you show when PACE decided it would not release results for protocol recovery criteria and what approval was sought/gained?
The facts are not clear only the release of a timeline of what was seen and approved when will clarify.
Jonathan Edwards' response on Phoenix Rising bit.ly/2oqjvWX "He has blown it. They have all blown it." #thegamesup #retractPACE
1
2