• 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 (FM), 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.

House of Lords debates the PACE Trial | verbatim report and YouTube

Messages
15,786
I saw that as he was trying to make sure none of them went around after this debate giving patients support.over "their physical illness"... He made it sound like anyone who did that would be being irresponsible so kind of put a peer group pressure thing onto anyone who would go against his thinking.

I think it's a somewhat common and very inappropriate tactic some people use. Basically they state that disagreeing with them is tantamount to discrimination/hate/etc targeted at some sympathetic population. It's specifically been used for a very long time in shutting down opposition to psychological ME/CFS theories.
 

orion

Senior Member
Messages
102
Location
UK
The most problematic outcome is that the debate encouraged Winston to 'adopt' a position, which he was not otherwise compelled to do, but which now means he's likely fixed to, having adopted it publicly. Winston is one of the 'go to people' for the Labour front bench when they need advice on Health Issues.
IVI

I suspect his views were fixed long before Lady Mar initiated this debate. He comes across as an old school doctor who thinks patients should know their place and not get involved in debates about medical issues. I definitely wouldn't see him as a natural ally.

I've never warmed to the guy. I find him smug, patronising, and insufferably paternalistic. I watched one of his documentaries a few years ago and he kept talking about what he would or wouldn't "allow" his patient to do, as if the patient didn't have any say in the matter.
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567
For anyone who missed it:
Permission to Repost.
Comments on the PACE debate held in the House of Lords (Grand Committee) on
6th February 2013.
An analysis of the comments made by the various Lords at the PACE Debate as
a result of a question posed by the Countess of Mar.

If you would prefer to read this via a PDF document then you may access via
this link:

At nearly 22,000 words (pdf is 35 pages), it's a long, long piece. But contains a lot of interesting information on the PACE Trial and ME/CFS politics, if you haven't read similar documents by Margaret Williams.

There's a thread on this at: http://forums.phoenixrising.me/inde...ds-grand-committee-on-6th-february-2013.22376
 

Dolphin

Senior Member
Messages
17,567

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Coyne may be devalued, but he still makes for good copy


What's interesting is that, usually with this stuff, it makes a splash in here and then the rest of the world goes on about their business without a thought. But now, Alem Matthees, Tom, Julie R, David Tuller, they've really managed to put the wind up some people and piss them off.

An actual pillar of the medical establishment distancing themselves from PACE in ostentatiously political, what am I actually talking about? Who knows? sort of language. Blimey!
 
Last edited:

Chrisb

Senior Member
Messages
1,051
How fortunate we are to live in a democracy where all the useless time servers can be voted out. Or am I missing something.

Lord Winston, of course, earned some renown by saying that he would not employ people with first class degrees. Some were unkind enough to make inferences which differed from his stated reasons.
 
Messages
13,774
I have been waiting for response from all the "noble Lords" about their current position on PACE.

Here is one of the big ones. Robert Winston who is also a TV personality.




Click on the actual tweets for other comments and responses

LOL at Winston's response. Disturbingly clueless.

It's actually a bit scary that he and other people like this have real influence.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
I stand by my measured speech in the Lords years ago made in good faith http://bit.ly/2diIt2w & with best evidence then available

8:26 AM - 22 Sep 2016

Except he didn't look at the evidence that's clear to see he looked at second hand spin.

Peter White:
I have had to provide responses to Parliamentary Questions from members of both Houses of Parliament to allow them to understand the nature and findings of the PACE trial. In particular, I had to recently brief several members of the House of Lords so that they might speak in a critical debate about the Pace trial held on 6th February this year (exhibit C)

So are we expected to believe that he left out Winston from this briefing? How irresponsible as Winston was the main person who responded to Lady Mar.

I stand by my measured speech in the Lords years ago made in good faith http://bit.ly/2diIt2w & with best evidence then available

Except the evidence was there is plain sight that they redefined the definition of recovery and one could be considered ill enough to enter the trial and both recovered at the same time.

He was well aware of this change of definitions after the trial had started because he even alluded to it in his speech that day. According to him it was ok because they hadn't seen the results yet. Too bad he couldn't understand the basic fraud that was claiming recovery whilst being disabled enough to qualify for the trial and the possibility this recovery definition could even apply to people who had got worse.

Such things can be described as evidence, whilst his stance can best be described as being ill informed whilst refusing to examine the evidence.

So if Winston didn't take the same stance as Lady Mar in terms of understanding the critiques of the trial etc and he wasn't in any contact with Peter White just what "best evidence available" did he use for his ill informed ramblings that day in the House?

This is a ludicrous explanation because it would only "work" if since the PACE trial a number of other trials had proved it wrong.

The whole point then and now is that PACE proved itself wrong and the evidence was right there infront of everyone all along.

He did not examine the critiques that have not changed since the time he was tasked to make his speech therefore he can make no claims of "best evidence"!
 
Last edited:

Daisymay

Senior Member
Messages
754
Yes the evidence was there, please see Margaret Williams evisceration of the various Lords comments in this debate:

http://www.mwcatalogue.esy.es/2013/...ebate-held-in-grand-committee-on_6feb2013.pdf

It was a total stitch up, the Lords were primed by White and they seemed to a man to take it all in without looking into the issue further for themselves. Yet the Lords will be very well aware of how these things work and they shouldn't have taken the word of one side in such a contentious issue without taking a critical look at things. They all took the easy, lazy way out blindly or knowingly just accepting the establishment view of ME/CFS.

How many of them bothered to ask the Countess of Mar for information to counter what White had given them?

it illustrates very clearly just how so much of politics works.

The Countess of Mar was pretty much a lone voice in this debate as she has been for years.

She is an amazing woman fighting for us all for all these years against such odds.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
Can anyone ask him on twitter if he still stands by his remarks of three years ago or does he want to retract or update them based on the current evidence?
 

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Can anyone ask him on twitter if he still stands by his remarks of three years ago or does he want to retract or update them based on the current evidence?
People have. As I said, I doubt we'll hear from him again. It sounds like a careful hand-washing statement.
 

Large Donner

Senior Member
Messages
866
People have. As I said, I doubt we'll hear from him again. It sounds like a careful hand-washing statement.

Ah, Thanks!!

Maybe he is off studying the best evidence. :whistle:

He is an evidence based guy right?

The thing is he has a perfect opportunity to pass the buck and come out against PACE now and could quite easily say it was the BPS crowd who mislead the house or his line of understanding directly of indirectly. I think that would be a passable claim to make in a way.

I wonder why he wouldn't do that?