• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of, and finding treatments for, complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia, long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

The Mental Elf: A PACE-gate or an editorial without perspectives? Kjetil Gundro Brurberg

Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
After publishing Wessely's ship metaphor, The Mental Elf intervenes once again in the PACE debate.With a clear allegiance to the PACE team.
Acknowledging that peer-review and sound debates are important constituents of science, I accepted the invitation, and submitted a commentary article co-authored with Signe Flottorp and Aase Aamland. Our contribution was intended to bring perspectives into the debate, aiming for better understanding and lower levels of conflict. Sadly, JHP decided to reject our contribution, essentially stating our arguments to be well known and erroneous. We consider it disturbing when a closed editorial process is used to label opinions as right or wrong. For such a strategy to work, the process needs to be transparent and unbiased. JHP does not seem to satisfy this standard, and authors who are supportive to the PACE trial and the PACE-trialists may seem selectively rejected.
Despite the negative feedback from the JHP, we consider it important to share our view with a broader audience; hence we have decided to publish the commentary article on the Mental Elf. We aim to bring perspectives into the debate about the PACE trial, and also discuss the usefulness of GET and CBT in a wider context. In brief, the effect estimates associated with GET and CBT seem well documented. Whether individual patients find the expected efficacy to be useful, will to some extent, be a matter of personal preferences. Even though GET and CBT can be useful, however, it is also our view that ongoing research should aim at developing new and more efficient treatment strategies.
Click to expand...

https://www.nationalelfservice.net/...ce-gate-or-an-editorial-without-perspectives/
 
Last edited:
Cheshire

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
They don't understand anything about the criticism made against PACE special CBT:

A large number of trials have consistently shown that cognitive behaviour therapy (CBT) and graded exercise therapy (GET) may be supportive for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) (Larun et al, 2016; Price et al, 2008). This observation tells us nothing about the possible or plausible causes of the disease. It is worth noting that the effects of CBT and GET in CFS/ME are similar to those seen among patients with other serious diseases where fatigue is a prominent symptom, e.g. cancer (Furmaniak et al, 2016) and multiple sclerosis (Heine et al, 2015; van den Akker et al, 2016). The benefit of CBT and GET does not imply that we can conclude that cancer, multiple sclerosis or CFS/ME occur for psychological reasons. It is difficult to understand why the benefit of CBT and exercise in patients with cancer and multiple sclerosis seems widely accepted, whereas the usefulness of CBT and GET for patients with CFS/ME remains controversial.
Click to expand...
 
alex3619

alex3619

Senior Member
Messages
13,810
Location
Logan, Queensland, Australia
I glanced at the full article. Uggghhh. The technical faults, which are numerous and eggregious, are OK apparently. They should try reading the commentaries from scientists all around the world. This is not up to scientific standards, and while psychiatrists etc. deem such poor standards are acceptable there will be little improvement in the profession.

I might try reading the full thing later.
 
sarah darwins

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
Whether individual patients find the expected efficacy to be useful, will to some extent, be a matter of personal preferences.
Click to expand...

Apart from the random use of commas, this looks like the output from a random word generator (and makes about as much sense).

"expected efficacy"? What's that, then? Is it efficacy or not? Or is it hypothetical efficacy, that BPS speciality?

"useful"? "a matter of personal preferences [sic]"? What is he saying here? That the treatment is efficacious but in ways that a sick person might not find useful? Like, er, not making them any less sick? Or making them more sick?

Honestly, what total bullshit.

I see that the author ...

"... has co-authored several systematic reviews about chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME), e.g. a systematic review about case criteria and a traditional Cochrane review about the efficacy of exercise therapy for patients. He is also co-authoring an upcoming Cochrane review about exercise therapy based on individual patient data, a work that has given detailed insight into the existing evidence."
Click to expand...
- https://www.nationalelfservice.net/author/kjetil-gundro-brurberg/

Oh, dear. More to come.
 
Last edited:
A

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
I liked this joke, looks like it's used through out the site :rofl:
Screen Shot 2017-07-19 at 09.31.48.png


It's to be expected that PACE authors and their buddies would fight against the truth being told. Like I've said before though, in a way this proves that we are making progress, if they weren't concerned then they just wouldn't bother writing that sort of thing.
 
S

Solstice

Senior Member
Messages
641
sarah darwins said:
Apart from the random use of commas, this looks like the output from a random word generator (and makes about as much sense).

"expected efficacy"? What's that, then? Is it efficacy or not? Or is it hypothetical efficacy, that BPS speciality.

"useful"? "a matter of personal preferences [sic]"? What is he saying here? That the treatment is efficacious but in ways that a sick person might not find useful? Like, er, not making them any less sick? Or making them more sick?

Honestly, what total bullshit.

I see that the author ...


- https://www.nationalelfservice.net/author/kjetil-gundro-brurberg/

Oh, dear. More to come.
Click to expand...

Is that ye old reference to authority again, or am I misreading the situation?
 
lilpink

lilpink

Senior Member
Messages
988
Location
UK
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!
 
Stewart

Stewart

Senior Member
Messages
291
lilpink said:
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.
Click to expand...

"First they ignore you, then they accuse you of an 'anti-science' campaign of harrassment, then they try to sidestep your legitimate criticisms of flawed methodologies, then you win."

Hmm. Gandhi's version is punchier. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.