I can see why Marks et al rejected it..it is absolutely just 'more of the same' rubbishy attempts to justify their rubbishy work which we have heard ad infinitum, so it doesn't add to the body of knowledge and therefore is redundant in a journal context. I also thought bringing up the 'ship' allusion was a bit of an own goal in that we know it was extended to observe that " Few trials suffer the fate of the Titanic, but sometimes the ship gets to the USA, but not to New York, but some other place; destination changed en route, which is considered bad form ". Not getting to your predetermined destination ( predetermined PACE Trial result) is somehow 'bad form' when in science there should be no destination, or at least if there is it's only a guide whilst an attempt is made to disprove that 'destination' that you or others have 'discovered' . It's only through trying to disprove an hypothesis that science moves forward.



Bruberg's commentary sounds desperate. Gandhi's old chestnut, "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win" seems apposite. They're not going down without a fight clearly... but by heck they're going down. HMS PACE has struck an iceberg, the irony being the school that supports PACE have towed that iceberg into view by their own junk science. 'Hoist by their own petard' and all that!