Julie Rehmeyer's 'Through the Shadowlands'
Writer Never Give Up talks about Julie Rehmeyer's new book "Through the Shadowlands: A Science Writer's Odyssey into an Illness Science Doesn't Understand" and shares an interview with Julie ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

Science Media Centre expert reaction to Journal of Health Psychology’s Special Issue on The PACE Tri

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Yogi, Jul 31, 2017.

  1. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes:
    6,170
    http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/e...-psychologys-special-issue-on-the-pace-trial/

     
  2. Cheshire

    Cheshire Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    Likes:
    7,837
    I don't see how lowering the recovery threshold mid trial could do anything but improve your recovery outcomes.

    yes, I can see one too, but not the one you're thinking of...
     
    Last edited: Jul 31, 2017
  3. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes:
    16,940
    The Ministry of Truth has spoken. Nothing to see here, peasants, move along.
     
    Mary, Cornishbird, CarolB and 34 others like this.
  4. Kalliope

    Kalliope Senior Member

    Messages:
    350
    Likes:
    3,295
    Norway
    Unbelievable..

    “So I don’t think there is really a story here, apart from a group of authors, some of doubtful provenance, kicking up dust about a study which has a few minor wrinkles (as all do) but still provides information reliable enough to shape practice. If you substitute ‘CFS’ for ‘autism’ and ‘PACE trial’ for ‘vaccination’ you see a familiar pattern…”
     
  5. Wonko

    Wonko Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,029
    Likes:
    2,149
    England
    They aren't saying that isn't true, they're saying that regardless of that effect, that the threshold was moved for a different reason, possibly it was decided by some bizarre public school ritual? but it definitely wasn't decided to lower the threshold because it would make their non results look like only poor results which by a process of spin, exaggeration and outright lying they could claim were outstanding results.

    You have to remember these people are experts at lying via misdirection, that's what they do for a living.
     
  6. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes:
    6,170


     
  7. Londinium

    Londinium Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes:
    832
    The irony here is massive. Many of the flaws in PACE highlighted (changes in primary objective, focus on self-reported outcomes, significant conflicts of interest etc etc) are exactly the kind of flaws one sees in 'scientific' research on alternative medicine / anti-vaccination.
     
  8. SamanthaJ

    SamanthaJ Senior Member

    Messages:
    190
    Likes:
    1,270
    What nasty smears from Prof. Macleod.
     
  9. Sean

    Sean Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,149
    Likes:
    16,981
    Where is the objective or properly blinded subjective evidence in PACE of any sustained clinically significant benefit?

    Until they can produce it, they got nothing.
     
  10. Cheshire

    Cheshire Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,042
    Likes:
    7,837
    Weird that this person is not named.
     
  11. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes:
    26,462
    Dr Neha Issar-Brown is part of the CMRC. For some reason the SMC continue to be invited to the CMRC. It's pretty clear that the CMRC is not on the side of good science.
     
  12. lilpink

    lilpink Senior Member

    Messages:
    742
    Likes:
    4,481
    UK
    Absolutely. And yet the MEA still collude.
     
  13. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,542
    Likes:
    27,398
     
    Maya24, Mary, Tuha and 16 others like this.
  14. Yogi

    Yogi Senior Member

    Messages:
    986
    Likes:
    6,170
    The so called "expert" says "“The PACE trial, while not perfect, provides far and away the best evidence for the effectiveness of any intervention for chronic fatigue;"

    Hmm.....can't even refer to the right illness.

    Or maybe they are now claiming PACE is for chronic fatigue!
     
    Mary, Luther Blissett, Hutan and 19 others like this.
  15. Londinium

    Londinium Senior Member

    Messages:
    110
    Likes:
    832
    Interestingly, having re-read Dr Issar-Brown's statement there I'm not sure it's as supportive as it first appears. Reading it again, it seems quite defensive as to 'the MRC did nothing wrong, we followed standard procedure' rather than a full-throated defence of the trial itself.

    I'm not sure using verbs like 'collude' is particularly accurate or helpful.
     
    JaimeS, Hutan, Skycloud and 11 others like this.
  16. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,249
    Likes:
    33,562
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    Funny nobody from the list of scientists who cosigned for the letter for urgent reevaluation or retraction were cited.

    Notice the preponderance of argument by authority.

    I need to read these in full, from the source, but it looks like only one major issue was addressed, and that issue was glossed over with a layer of misdirection.

    This is not unexpected. These counter-arguments are primarily political and persuasive. Substance and non-fallacious reasoning are lacking. I wonder if they did their due diligence and read all of the abstracts, both from JHP and involving the original PACE publications (satire)? It will be interesting to see what Coyne and Tuller have to say.
     
  17. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,246
    Likes:
    26,462
    I agree that it was a less than full throated defence of PACE, but it still had : "The Medical Research Council funded and supported the PACE trial after subjecting the research proposal to a robust peer-review process involving experts in the field, as is the case with all our funding decisions."

    That looks like a willingness to prioritising protecting the reputation of the MRC over pursuing good science, and standing against the way that patient criticis of PACE have been smeared. At this point, that sort of response isn't anywhere near acceptable.
     
  18. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,249
    Likes:
    33,562
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    That would be a step forward, however only a small step. Their lack of any objective outcome, aside from a tiny and clinically irrelevant improvement in the 6MWT, and including no improvement in fitness are a problem. The recovery threshold set for SF36PF at the age of about eighty is a big problem for any formerly young and fit patients. The failure to produce any good result at long term follow up is a deathstroke for their research, with patients being as well off with no treatment, but that was spun too.
     
    Luther Blissett, JaimeS, Jan and 9 others like this.
  19. Sidereal

    Sidereal Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,066
    Likes:
    16,940
    The point, which obviously went over this reviewer's head, is that the reasons for changing outcome measures in this particular instance were justified on the basis of erroneous interpretation of normative data. This point has been well-made by Wilshire and others in the peer-reviewed literature. There is no justification whatsoever for lowering SF-36 recovery range to class II congestive heart failure level of functioning.
     
  20. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,249
    Likes:
    33,562
    Logan, Queensland, Australia
    The thing about argument by authority is that it cuts both ways. Cited authorities will have their reputations burned when all the evidence is finally seen and accepted. That is in the process of happening.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page