The 12th Invest in ME Research Conference June, 2017, Part 2
MEMum presents the second article in a series of three about the recent 12th Invest In ME International Conference (IIMEC12) in London.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

PACE trial misrepresents their own results again

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Barry53, Mar 27, 2017.

  1. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes:
    13,684
    UK
    More from Mark Vink:-

    http://www.observantonline.nl/Home/...E-trial-misrepresents-their-own-results-again
    I could not see this posted elsewhere - apologies if I missed anything.
     
    Yogi, dangermouse, Solstice and 6 others like this.
  2. Effi

    Effi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,491
    Likes:
    4,551
    Europe
  3. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes:
    13,684
    UK
    Woolie and trishrhymes like this.
  4. trishrhymes

    trishrhymes Save PR. Sack the President of the Board.

    Messages:
    2,153
    Likes:
    17,865
    Just noticed this at the bottom of the article:

    Mark Vink, (Family Physician). is the author of the 2016 Review of the PACE trial for which he was nominated for the John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science.

    Isn't that the prize Wessely won for standing up to dangerously militant patients who were a figment of his imagination.
     
    Solstice, Laelia, Jan and 3 others like this.
  5. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,514
    Looks like Tuller's comment was turned into an article too: http://www.observantonline.nl/Home/...icleId/12119/No-scientific-ground-to-stand-on

    Is this a bit looser on the details than usual, eg:

    "They received absolutely no approval from oversight committees for this redefinition of recovery."

    I thought that had not been confirmed either way yet (although I suspect their refusal to confirm is a result of them not having approval). Maybe Tuller is trying to smoke them out with his assertion? Seems like a needless risk to me.

    In the Vink piece there's this:

    "In up to 82.2% (CBT) and 79.8% (GET) of patients their health was made worse, confirming the outcomes of numerous patient surveys that CBT and GET are ineffective and harmful in a (very) large percentage of patients."

    I don't follow his arguments about PACE confirming the outcome that CBT and GET are harmful for a large percentage of patients. I think that he must have made an error somewhere to be concluding that.
     
    Yogi likes this.
  6. Effi

    Effi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,491
    Likes:
    4,551
    Europe
    @Barry53 you are right! Looks like Mark Vink has been very busy in the past week ;)

    I'll add this article to the the other thread.
     
    Barry53 likes this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page