• 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.

David Tuller / Trial by Error: The Science Media Centre’s Desperate Efforts to Defend PACE

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
So, are you saying that when the changed the recovery definition it lead to greater results for the non SMC arms only?


Trying to work out how the reanalysis of the recovery paper as per the original protocol, resulted in a non statistical difference between arms, when there was much more of a difference under changed protocol in the original paper.

Another way of saying it, does the argument that lowering the recovery threshold results in more patients beings recovered, hold true - if someone could say it also means the SMC arm should have more patients recovered.

Or are you saying the recovery threshold could have been choosen exactly to give more patients recovered in the CBT and GET arms and not the SMC arm ?

Apologies if this doesnt make sense.
The rates of recovery using the original threshold were just really, really low across the board. This meant that when they were submitted to statistical analysis, there was just not enough numerical evidence to say that any treatment yielded reliably higher rates of recovery than any other.

By changing the definition of recovery, the PACE authors were able to increase the rates of recovery in all groups, and then, it was possible to show a reliable difference between treatment conditions.

You might say, "Well, then, CBT and GET really did help people recover". But what you have measured now is something that's very different from recovery. Its more a measure of improvement (based primarily on self-rated scales).
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
I had not really thought about it before but aren't the second two SMC comments just self-defence statements from the people involved rather than opinions of scientific experts? Is it realistic that a 'Science Media Centre' should provide 'informed scientific comment' that consists just of rebuttals by the people under fire?

I have an impression that the media are actually getting a bit fed up with SMC over this. I was recounted a story of the SMC rushing around like passengers on the Titanic when asked to comment on a television project. I think it may be significant that the comment was dropped from the end of the Times piece.

Why do I keep thinking of Trump saying 'in my opinion it is unlikely there was any interference'?
 

Woolie

Senior Member
Messages
3,263
I have an impression that the media are actually getting a bit fed up with SMC over this. I was recounted a story of the SMC rushing around like passengers on the Titanic when asked to comment on a television project. I think it may be significant that the comment was dropped from the end of the Times piece.
Yes, it is encouraging how little the press made of the "expert comments" released by the SMC.

Yes, we know they're made by the PACE authors' mates, but no-one else does, and I don't think those two were direct authors on any of the PACE papers.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
Yes, it is encouraging how little the press made of the "expert comments" released by the SMC.

Yes, we know they're made by the PACE authors' mates, but no-one else does, and I don't think those two were direct authors on any of the PACE papers.

The two in question were self-defence statements issued by institutions responsible for the study rather than mates or authors. Issa-Brown's job is quality control for applications to MRC. The Oxford statement appears to have come from the deanery that pays Sharpe. You cannot get less independent than that really.
 

Londinium

Senior Member
Messages
178
The MRC statement certainly read as a 'we followed the proper process' defence rather than a full-on 'the science is correct'. Interestingly, the recent NIH (or was it CDC?) call said that the NIH had good conversations with UK medical research agencies when they were in town for the IIMEC conference. I don't think it's clear whether this was the MRC, NIHR or both, but either way it may be that the MRC is getting a good sense of the shift towards immunological research in the US. If so, the logical defence if I were them would be the process defence: 'we funded based on the best advice, now we're moving on as the science moves on'. It's what I would do if I were sat in their press office :)
 

Skycloud

Senior Member
Messages
508
Location
UK
I know I probably shouldn't, but there's part of me that actually enjoys watching the politics and game playing. At least it distracts me from feeling ill.

I had not really thought about it before but aren't the second two SMC comments just self-defence statements from the people involved rather than opinions of scientific experts? Is it realistic that a 'Science Media Centre' should provide 'informed scientific comment' that consists just of rebuttals by the people under fire?

I like this, wish I'd noticed it.
 

Mrs Sowester

Senior Member
Messages
1,055
I've been pondering the significance in the marked difference between the two ME related SMC statements this week, and what I would make of them as a news editor. (I imagine I'd be calling the SMC the Ministry for Information by now).

The statement in defence of the PACE trial has no substance; there is no actual defence despite it coming across as being incredibly defensive. The take home message is 'we're uncomfortable about this issue, our only defence is our authority, but hey ho, science moves on'. And that 'science moves on' is double speak for we know we're wrong.
The second statement about the Stanford Montoya research is pessimistic in tone, they've wheeled out a psychiatrist, but that psych actually discusses the science, there is substance.
These both came out on Monday, I think, the same day that emails intended to discredit James Coyne are made public.

I don't think any editor worth his salt could interpret the evidence given as anything other than PACE is indefensible and the SMC has it's own agenda.
As far as public relations cock ups go the cock couldn't have been more vertical. This was spectacularly badly handled by the SMC.
 

Daisymay

Senior Member
Messages
754
The two in question were self-defence statements issued by institutions responsible for the study rather than mates or authors. Issa-Brown's job is quality control for applications to MRC. The Oxford statement appears to have come from the deanery that pays Sharpe. You cannot get less independent than that really.

I'm not so sure, might we be wrongly assuming these two statements were issued by these institutions, reflecting the official position of these organisations? There is no proof they are.


Yes we're told in the preamble that Issa-Brown holds a certain position at the MRC etc but that doesn't mean she is the official spokesperson for the MRC. To me it's ambiguous, which is suspicious. Issa-Brown could simply be responding to a request from the SMC for her "expert" opinion (she is involved with the CMRC as is Sykes of the SMC so they know each other) and he could simply have asked her for a comment rather than her response being the official response of the MRC.

Similarly the statement from the anonymous Oxford University spokesperson, it doesn't claim to be an official OU spokesperson, merely a spokesperson who comes from OU. He/she could merely be someone from OU speaking on behalf of Michael Sharpe and PACE giving the impression they are speaking officially when they are not.

Prof Edwards, might it be an idea for you (or Dave Tuller or the Countess of Mar) to contact relevant persons high up in both these organisations to firstly find out if these two statements are indeed official and to get definitive statements on where these organisations stand with PACE, ie do they unequivocally stand by the scientific methodology, integrity and findings of the PACE trial or not, give them a noose to hang themselves or get them to distance themselves from the PACE trial, at least to a degree.

Without such confirmation of these organisations official stance, down the line they can deny the expert statements were official.
 

Jonathan Edwards

"Gibberish"
Messages
5,256
I'm not so sure, might we be wrongly assuming these two statements were issued by these institutions, reflecting the official position of these organisations? There is no proof they are.

i don't think I was implying that these are 'official' positions. Just that if you want independent scientific expert information from a media centre you do not expect to get self-defence statements from the institutions that were responsible for the work.

That said I think Issar-Brown would have to be considered as representing the MRC position because she is involved in quality control for ME projects as I understand it.

Having an anonymous person from Oxford is particularly strange for a media outlet aiming to be transparent. If it is not the 'view from Oxford' then it is unclear why we are told it is from Oxford, rather than just an anonymous expert. Moreover, the statement 'Oxford University considers Professor Sharpe and his colleagues to be highly reputable scientists' seems to be pretty much an official endorsement.

I don't think there is such a thing as an official position on a piece of science for organisations like this. If pressed, a committee would come up with some bland verbiage.


I was interested to re-read the Oxford statement which says that suggestions of unprofessional behaviour are not justified. This may refer to me. Interesting that it should slip out in a press release from a body purporting to provide independent expert opinion on science (not score points in private spats). Dr Sharpe will recently have received a report suggesting that he has been unprofessional - from me. The comment refers specifically to his charge that PACE critics are like climate change deniers. I continue to maintain that such behaviour was totally unprofessional. I shall be interested to see how Dr Sharpe responds himself.


The Wizard of Oz?
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
I had not really thought about it before but aren't the second two SMC comments just self-defence statements from the people involved rather than opinions of scientific experts? Is it realistic that a 'Science Media Centre' should provide 'informed scientific comment' that consists just of rebuttals by the people under fire?

I have an impression that the media are actually getting a bit fed up with SMC over this. I was recounted a story of the SMC rushing around like passengers on the Titanic when asked to comment on a television project. I think it may be significant that the comment was dropped from the end of the Times piece.

Why do I keep thinking of Trump saying 'in my opinion it is unlikely there was any interference'?
The SMC does seem to be exposing itself more widely as being simply a mouthpiece for the establishement view.
 

Barry53

Senior Member
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
As far as public relations cock ups go the cock couldn't have been more vertical. This was spectacularly badly handled by the SMC.
And this is exactly what happens when bigoted manipulative bullying individuals or organisations are exposed, as they thrash around trying to defend the indefensible in public, rather than from the shadows where they normally inhabit. They are out of their comfort zone.
 

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
As far as public relations cock ups go the cock couldn't have been more vertical. This was spectacularly badly handled by the SMC.
Nice to see you back on form Mrs S :thumbsup:.

So the Science Media Centre have demonstrated that they know nothing about science and nothing about the media. What are they supposed to be good at exactly?
 

Mrs Sowester

Senior Member
Messages
1,055
Well our cock is pushing up the daisies unfortunately! The ladies spent a couple of weeks not sure what to do without his guidance, but after a while discovered chicken feminism (heninism?) and they are singing their egg songs and laying again. We are overwhelmed by eggs, there is a limit to the amount of quiche anyone can stomach, literally.
But I don't see them much now really, they are at the bottom of the steps I fell off and I'm not allowed any more disasters for a while.

Today's Coyne post is a bit strange https://jcoynester.wordpress.com/2017/08/03/before-the-pace-gate-opened/ I don't get the Boy George reference, I guess its something to do with George Davy Smith (who I guess leaked the emails). Can anyone shed some light?
 

Jill

Senior Member
Messages
209
Location
Auckland, NZ
I am not english, but have heard on podcasts that the Advertising standards Authority has some clout. Would contacting them help in retraction of the paper? If a treatment has been used and advertised in clinics as "safe treatment" and now its been found to be based on essentially fraudulent information, can't the ASA step in ??
 

SilverbladeTE

Senior Member
Messages
3,043
Location
Somewhere near Glasgow, Scotland
I am not english, but have heard on podcasts that the Advertising standards Authority has some clout. Would contacting them help in retraction of the paper? If a treatment has been used and advertised in clinics as "safe treatment" and now its been found to be based on essentially fraudulent information, can't the ASA step in ??

I'd doubt that would apply t the Medical Profession because of the law and power the "Old School Tie network" has

British law has specific safeguards for medical personnel who're trying to do their best for patients in difficult circumstances, recognizing the difficult, grey areas of ethics and morals when trying to treat people
however, as some of this is based off the events of the trial of the mass murderer Doctor John Bodkin Adams, it is long since time it was reviewed by those NOT part of the corrupt, cosy cronyism of the "Professional classes"

Bodkin Adams's trial prompted legal changes that meant, roughly, you cannot prosecute a doctor for trying to help a patient when they would die/suffer anyway and your medical help may cause an earlier death but alleviate suffering.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Bodkin_Adams

the evil scum who have abused us, will use such precedents in law and pretend they have been trying to help us, even if they were factually wrong, they were "morally doing the right thing".
Please note the use of the language of some of these psychologists, they have for DECADES set up a systematic excuse for our mass murder, torture and abuse by constantly saying "they are only working for the patients' best interests!" Which is completely false, as they have blatant "conflicts of interests", and some of them have become extremely wealthy and earned honours they do not deserve that make them very valuable as "spokesman", or form talking in front of forums etc.

Also, too often they have been caught out, even recorded as holding patients in sneering contempt, as literal "untermensch", or these psychs have shown constant misanthropy (hatred/contempt for all human beings)

And with how utterly corrupt the British Establishment is, ALWAYS protecting the "professional classes" (doctors, lawyers, etc) they'll almost certainly get away with it as they have with MANY other utterly heinous crimes.

Another part of the web of corruption, nepotism and cronyism in the UK are the ones who've been to the exclusive universities (Cambridge, Oxford etc),
or from a small group of noble families who've secretly ruled the UK since the time of the Stuart kings (they were about 7 families of bureaucrats who King James brought with him to London and have really run much of the UK ever since, all of their descendants have great wealth, influence, such as the former Prime Minister, David Cameron)

it is DEEPLY disturbing and unconscionable, that Simon Wesseley was not only knighted (made a "Sir"), by the Queen, but also given the extremely rare meritorious award of being a "Regius professor" of which only twelve scientists, scholars etc have ever been given such award.
Such awards are decided by the government, and has been repeatedly shown, they are too often awards for being part of the nepotism and corruption that chokes British power and politics.
By the standards of the medical profession, his height, fame etc some may thing he deserves recognition, but to that extent is extremely unusual...and frankly I believe it's because the corrupt system is protecting their "golden boy" they've used so, so often to defuse, deny, prevent investigation into serious or catastrophic problems that plague the people of our country and others...and thus stop criminal investigations into industrial accidents caused by grotesque mismanagement, or profiting form things that are known to maim and kill unnecessarily.
Camelford, Gulf War Syndrome (UK/USA sold Saddam Hussein the means to create nerve gas which then poisoned our own soldiers), Aerotoxic Syndrome (again, organophosphates similar to nerve gasses used on aircraft) etc etc It has happened WAY too often for it to be mere "coincidence", it forms a pattern of behaviour.
any man of conscience should surely see how compromised he is in such a position, or how much trouble he may have caused and APOLOGIZE to the Public and turn "Queen's Evidence" against those who may have used him for nefarious ends.