From British science writer Julie Rehmeyer at Stat News:
How bad science misled chronic fatigue syndrome patients
Under court order, the study’s authors for the first time released their raw data earlier this month. Patients and independent scientists collaborated to analyze it and posted their findings Wednesday on Virology Blog, a site hosted by Columbia microbiology professor Vincent Racaniello.
The analysis shows that if you’re already getting standard medical care, your chances of being helped by the treatments are, at best, 10 percent. And your chances of recovery? Nearly nil.
The new findings are the result of a five-year battle that chronic fatigue syndrome patients — me among them — have waged to review the actual data underlying that $8 million study. It was a battle that, until a year ago, seemed nearly hopeless.More.
The people wanting disclosure were implied to be a surce of death threats against the researchers. There is a heck of a good film in this.
See also: The natural selection of bad science
From Nature journal: Many reviews, little insight
Ioannidis again, on misleading meta-analyses We live in curious times. So many mediocrities waving pompoms for “science,” demanding “faith in science” amid a sea of scandals.
Follow UD News at Twitter!