Thank you Janna. It’s appalling that we’re still having to talk about this. So much damage has been done via research conducted fraudulently in order to get a desired outcome.
Okay, I have a question about the PACE trial. I guess I should probably just look at it…but when you discuss their changing of the “recovered” threshold: did they not use an *improvement* or change in the SF-36 (or whatever it is called) to denote recovery? Or improvement? It doesn’t make sense that they would just give it a number when some could have gone from 65 to 61, like in your example, and they could call that person recovered. I am also curious to know if the de-identified data bore that out. I’m sure you don’t have that answer, but still curious. To be clear, I am NOT a fan of the PACE trial, this is just confusing to me.
In case you hadn't seen, Jeannette Burmeister has written about her in depth dive into the "effort preference" part of the study. It underscores why there are calls for retraction.
Thank you Janna. It’s appalling that we’re still having to talk about this. So much damage has been done via research conducted fraudulently in order to get a desired outcome.
Okay, I have a question about the PACE trial. I guess I should probably just look at it…but when you discuss their changing of the “recovered” threshold: did they not use an *improvement* or change in the SF-36 (or whatever it is called) to denote recovery? Or improvement? It doesn’t make sense that they would just give it a number when some could have gone from 65 to 61, like in your example, and they could call that person recovered. I am also curious to know if the de-identified data bore that out. I’m sure you don’t have that answer, but still curious. To be clear, I am NOT a fan of the PACE trial, this is just confusing to me.
The confusion is understandable. What they did is hard to fathom - it's bad science. David Tuller explains it in multiple articles. This one may answer your questions. https://virology.ws/2020/01/13/trial-by-error-the-2018-pace-reanalysis-and-the-smcs-expert-appraisals/
In case you hadn't seen, Jeannette Burmeister has written about her in depth dive into the "effort preference" part of the study. It underscores why there are calls for retraction.
This is the 3rd part of a four part series. I recommend reading all of the series, but this part gives some overview with links to the first 2. https://thoughtsaboutme.com/2024/06/16/the-nih-intramural-me-study-lies-damn-lies-and-statistics-part-3/
Thanks for the exhaustive breakdown!