• 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.

PACE trial misrepresents their own results again

Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Messages
2,158
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.
 
Messages
13,774
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.