Looking Ahead to Change: Little by Little
I don't make New Year's Resolutions. I don't think I ever really did, but the last decade or two would have been enough to stifle that impulse. I've just been too aware that I don't have that much control over what happens in my life.
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Science Magazine covers Tuller's PACE analysis!

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by searcher, Oct 27, 2015.

  1. searcher

    searcher

    Messages:
    565
    Likes:
    1,960
    SF Bay Area
    http://news.sciencemag.org/health/2015/10/criticism-mounts-long-controversial-chronic-fatigue-study

    I hope that this is just the start of critical coverage of the PACE trial and the new studies. I wish it went into more detail on the concerns with the study but at least it acknowledged that there are many issues.
     
    Last edited: Oct 27, 2015
    Valentijn, MeSci, Wildcat and 10 others like this.
  2. WillowJ

    WillowJ คภภเє ɠรค๓թєl

    Messages:
    3,763
    Likes:
    4,843
    WA, USA
    Jon Cohen has written a short, very readable piece. Well done, him.

    I recognize his name from somewhere.
     
    Sean, Tom Kindlon and Esther12 like this.
  3. barbc56

    barbc56 Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,652
    Likes:
    5,007
    Bob and WillowJ like this.
  4. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,947
    England (south coast)
    Incorrect:
    Misleading:
    Misleading:

    Unhelpful and nasty propaganda:

    I'm really disappointed by this article. I think it's unhelpful and misleading. It promotes the propaganda.
     
    Last edited: Oct 28, 2015
    Tom Kindlon, SOC, Valentijn and 3 others like this.
  5. searcher

    searcher

    Messages:
    565
    Likes:
    1,960
    SF Bay Area
    I genuinely think Jon quoted him at the end because it's in stark contrast to all the criticism. His statement is obviously absurd when there are esteemed researchers pointing out how bad the study is. There's a reason Jon quoted the researchers from David's piece earlier in the article. I wish he had come out against the study altogether, but overall I think most reasonable readers would read this piece and understand that there are problems with the trial and subsequent publications that need investigation.
     
    SOC, Valentijn, MeSci and 4 others like this.
  6. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    I think it's a fair piece from someone who hasn't had time to really look in to all the details.

    Lets people know their are two points of view, doesn't imply one side are dangerous anti-psychiatry terrorists. Sounds like a big improvement tbh.
     
  7. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes:
    18,184
    That was my impression. I don't think he has dug into the details of the PACE latest release but its hard to do that and get something out on time considering they only released the paper at midnight. There is a lot of context needed to read behind the lines of the PACE trial (basically don't read what they say just look at the data and understand its form).

    Its good that Tuller's article is getting more coverage.
     
  8. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,947
    England (south coast)
    Hmm.. I'll read it again and look for some positives... But I find it annoying that any article would say that CBT/GET were shown to be helpful in the follow up study when that's simply just misinformation that could be checked out very easily. It took me about a minute to find out that CBT/GET weren't effective at follow up. What's the point in reporting science if you can't get the simple fundamental basics of a medical trial correct? The article reports that the interventions were effective at follow up, but they were ineffective.
     
    Tom Kindlon, SOC, mango and 1 other person like this.
  9. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885
    Really? I thought it was very good. It challenges the PACE trial whilst giving both sides coverage. Remember this is the first mainstream media article to cover Tullers investigation of last week. Sharpe comes across as a bit mental with the last quote. The other articles today from British media are all trash and propaganda - this is not. We need to get Jon Cohen to follow this up and cover this in more detail in his future articles. He seems to be a good open minded journalist and from Science magazine nonetheless! Thank god for the Americans challenging the propaganda.
     
  10. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,131
    Likes:
    6,885
    The PACE PI's have been spinning their results to the media before the embargo last night and they once again are ultimately responsible for any inaccuracies. It is difficult to report on Sharpe et al given their double speak.
     
  11. searcher

    searcher

    Messages:
    565
    Likes:
    1,960
    SF Bay Area
    Honestly @Bob I also didn't like it the first time I read it but it seemed much better the second time. He first states what the researchers claim in their paper, then points out what the actual data says:
    The authors' suggestion is obviously a shot in the dark to obfuscate the fact that all four arms did the same.
     
  12. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,947
    England (south coast)
    I've read it again, and can see what you're all saying. There definitely is balance compared to what we're used to reading in mainstream media articles. But, nonetheless, there are important basic factual errors which are very grating.
     
    Tom Kindlon, SOC, Valentijn and 3 others like this.
  13. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,097
    Likes:
    17,179
    Disappointing article overall though I am glad to see Tuller's work being mentioned in the mainstream media.
     
  14. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards "Gibberish"

    Messages:
    5,247
    Likes:
    31,976
    I think it is a very fair piece from someone who is not to know the detailed arguments. I certainly get the impression that the message between the lines is that something does not add up with PACE. I also think that the last quote from Sharpe is intended to look pretty silly. I think the real meaning is 'Science has noticed that people are unhappy with PACE but we are going to let people decide for themselves rather than take sides without the necessary inside knowledge'. They could do more, but this is just a news flag as I see it.
     
    WillowJ, Valentijn, Bob and 2 others like this.
  15. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,257
    Likes:
    17,985
    SOC and Valentijn like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page