I'm assuming, seeing as it was mentioned along with the MMR scandal, that it was given as an example of a pile of crap and the way not to do things. I may find out more at some point.
Yes, I hope so. I ask because the MMR/vaccines issue is often talked about by health professionals as an example of parents/patients not complying with evidence-based treatments, not just as an example of a poor/fraudulent study. This is the spin that I see the PACE authors and people like Esther Crawley trying to put on the GET/CBT debate - that it's an example of patients not complying with evidence-based treatments because of misinformation. For example, Esther Crawley wrote in her blog about encountering criticism of her trial of GET in children with ME/CFS (which I do not recommend):
"This has made me reflect on why we do research. And whether I should follow countless other CFS/ME researchers and leave the field. I talked to a famous researcher who experienced something similar
when he advocated children should be vaccinated against preventable illnesses. Why do you continue I asked him? His answer? “Because it is right”. And it is right that we should continue doing research in important areas to develop effective treatments for children who suffer." (I added the bolding.)
http://www.nihr.ac.uk/blogs/doing-what-is-right-in-a-controversial-field/5370
and Peter White's article called "If my team's research on ME is rejected, the patients will suffer" (again, I don't recommend it):
"Whichever way the data is viewed, patients get better results from CBT and GET – both confirmed as safe – than they do from pacing or medical care alone.
This whole affair is perhaps saddest for the patients themselves, whose suffering has been neglected for far too long. However, there is hope. First, the important message for patients is that it is possible to get treatment that will help them improve and for some to recover. Second, we agree with campaigners that we need more research into the causes and treatments of CFS/ME. However, if their campaign puts people off trying CBT and GET, it will be the patients themselves who will suffer the most."
https://www.theguardian.com/comment...tients-suffer-put-off-treatments-our-research
@Jonathan Edwards wrote a great comment on that Guardian article
"Unfortunately, this is a totally misleading analysis of the situation. Independent scientists are now more or less unanimous that the PACE trial is worthless because of basic design flaws. The recent reanalysis by an independent group was based on the PACE authors' original endpoints and it shows no significant evidence for recovery due to specific therapies. The independent review in the recent Freedom of Information tribunal confirmed that the PACE authors' claims that criticism of their trial was an attack on science were groundless. I have become involved in this as an independent outside academic and I am very clear that the criticism are entirely justified and often too lenient.
Jonathan Edwards
Professor Emeritus
Department of Medicine University College London"
It is really fantastic if undergraduate health professionals are being educated about the PACE trial's flaws.