• 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.

Correspondence in Private Eye on PACE Trial

Michelle

Michelle

Decennial ME/CFS patient
Messages
172
Location
Portland, OR
I love how White et al say that the data made no difference to their conclusions. Not that they would have used it, but beliefs would have been the better word rather than conclusions. Indeed Simon Wessley used the very word when he told Steven Lubet regarding the PACE trial that "I do believe that the studies of CBT and GET for CFS (including but certainly not restricted to the PACE trial) are sound." He then uses the ultimate answer of those without evidence: "We will have to agree to disagree." Lillebeth Larun uses the same phrase in her replies to Robert Courtney's questions regarding the Cochrane Review on Exercise Therapy & CFS. As @Jonathan Edwards suggests upthread, this isn't Science anymore. White, Chalder, Wessley, Larun and the rest are peddling Old Time Religion, nothing more.
 
Last edited:
deleder2k

deleder2k

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Michelle said:
I love how White et al say that the data made no difference to their conclusions. Not that they would have used it, but belief would have been the better word. Indeed Simon Wessley used the very word when he told Steven Lubet regarding the PACE trial that "I do believe that the studies of CBT and GET for CFS (including but certainly not restricted to the PACE trial) are sound." He then uses the ultimate answer of those without evidence: "We will have to agree to disagree." Lillebeth Larun uses the same phrase in her replies to Robert Courtney's questions regarding the Cochrane Review on Exercise Therapy & CFS. As @Jonathan Edwards suggests upthread, this isn't Science anymore. White, Chalder, Wessley, Larun and the rest are peddling Old Time Religion, nothing more.
Click to expand...

I can't find Lillebeth Larun's reply. Is there something wrong with the link?
 
B

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Jonathan Edwards said:
The remarkable thing is that Peter White seems to think that what matter are his conclusions.The job of the scientist is to provide evidence from which others can draw whatever conclusions they like. The value of paper has nothing to do with the conclusions of the authors. It ls the way it helps the reader to form their own conclusions about a scientific question. The fact that the reanalysis made no difference to the authors conclusions, apart from being of no interest to anyone, demonstrates further the inability of the authors to understand how science works.
Click to expand...
This is an insight I had not fully appreciated, but of course it makes sense. I think Peter White demonstrates in his response a typical weaknesses of supremely arrogant people: the inability to appreciate that within their strident claims of righteousness, they do in fact provide evidence of how wrong they actually are.
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
Tom Kindlon said:
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/814494480711696384
Click to expand...

Fingers crossed you get something published. Always a little scared when others are encouraged to write that someone will send in something ill-informed that plays into old prejudices... hopefully they'll get a barrage of great letters that undermine any attempt to portray this as stupid patients worrying about the social stigma of successful psychological therapies!
 
Last edited:
T

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
This was posted to a mailing list I am on:
Just got the 12th Jan copy with my Tesco order, and they had reprinted the 3 letters, ie from the pace authors, NA wright and Brian Donoghue, that were in the last copy rather than any new letters.
I saw that Tom said he and Alem had both written. I had written a short one just to add to chances of one being published.
Lets hope they publish Tom's and Alem's ones in the next edition.
Click to expand...
 
A

AndyPR

Senior Member
Messages
2,516
Location
Guiding the lifeboats to safer waters.
New letters in the latest edition (I assume) of Private Eye
15977788_775902062558184_2070765494701296950_n.jpg

Thanks to @Keith Geraghty , @Tom Kindlon and all others for writing in. Image from a post on the Bristol ME Support Group Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/bmesg/).
 
T

Tom Kindlon

Senior Member
Messages
1,734
AndyPR said:
New letters in the latest edition (I assume) of Private Eye
View attachment 19137
Thanks to @Keith Geraghty , @Tom Kindlon and all others for writing in. Image from a post on the Bristol ME Support Group Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/bmesg/).
Click to expand...
Thanks to anyone else who wrote in. I was in touch with at least one other person who did. The more letters media outlets get, the greater the chance they will cover it I imagine.

The letters I submitted were co-authored with Alem Matthees but his name was dropped for some reason (probably space).
 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
I'd helped edit a longer letter too (my leaden touch guaranteeing non-publication), and heard of another one. Looks like this is still the main issue on their letters pages - wonder if White et al. fancy continuing the correspondance there?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.