• 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.

Scientists and patient organisations call for retraction of PACE recovery paper - open letter

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
Wow - I count over 100 signatories! They're mostly scientists (some very heavy-duty names on there, and a shedload of professors) but there are also a ton of patient organisations. Loads of countries represented.

This is very impressive. I hope the editors of Psychological Medicine will now do what they should have done when the problems with that paper were first pointed out, and retract it.

Huge thanks to everyone who signed it. Journals don't seem willing to listen to patients - perhaps they'll listen to their peers.
 

user9876

Senior Member
Messages
4,556
It is also quite embarrassing for the editor Robin Murray who wrote an editorial supporting the paper despite the obvious flaws pointed out in letters. I think he was quite critical of patents for daring to write critical letters.

I believe unpublished letters also pointed out the issues with using a threshold of mean -sd given the form of the SF36 physical function data. But they have so far chosen not to correct erroneous claims about the level of function in the overall population.

The PACE recovery paper is highly misleading and should never have been published.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
I agree the paper should never have been published. The "recovery" thresholds for physical function and fatigue were below the levels needed to be sick enough to enter the trial. It beggars belief that the paper ever made it into print.
 

Sasha

Fine, thank you
Messages
17,863
Location
UK
BTW, we should be thanking those scientists and orgs and Prof. Vince Racaniello for publishing the letter on his blog. They're all sticking their necks out for us and they didn't need to. I see a lot of new names on there that I don't recognise.

This is a tidal wave of academic disapproval for Psychological Medicine and I hope they'll finally wake up and do the right thing.
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
A new open letter was published today on virology.ws, asking Psychological Medicine to retract the article “Recovery from chronic fatigue syndrome after treatments given in the PACE trial.”

To protect patients from ineffective and possibly harmful treatments, White et al.’s recovery claims cannot stand in the literature. Therefore, we are asking Psychological Medicine to retract the paper immediately. Patients and clinicians deserve and expect accurate and unbiased information on which to base their treatment decisions. We urge you to take action without further delay.

The signatories now number 83 scientists and doctors (if I counted right), as well as a number of a patient organisations.

http://www.virology.ws/2017/03/13/a...l-medicine-about-recovery-and-the-pace-trial/

Edit: I saw too late that this has already been posted. Feel free to delete or merge.
 
Last edited:

Hajnalka

Senior Member
Messages
910
Location
Germany
Such flaws are unacceptable in published research; they cannot be defended or explained away.
To protect patients from ineffective and possibly harmful treatments, White et al.’s recovery claims cannot stand in the literature. Therefore, we are asking Psychological Medicine to retract the paper immediately. Patients and clinicians deserve and expect accurate and unbiased information on which to base their treatment decisions. We urge you to take action without further delay.
:angel:
 

Yogi

Senior Member
Messages
1,132
BTW, we should be thanking those scientists and orgs and Prof. Vince Racaniello for publishing the letter on his blog. They're all sticking their necks out for us and they didn't need to. I see a lot of new names on there that I don't recognise.

This is a tidal wave of academic disapproval for Psychological Medicine and I hope they'll finally wake up and do the right thing.


That is over 100 signatures (i think 102 signatures but lost count). Let us also not forget the charities represent millions of sufferers themselves.

So this must be the vexatious harassing dangerous death threatening minority that wessely was talking about. He really is looking like a fool now.

I wish i could be a fly in Peter White and Michael Sharpe's house tonight. I wonder how they are sleeping at night.

I agree with Sasha that we all need to thank these great scientists who have helped us by logging on virology and leaving a comment of thanks.
I
The PACE team have dug themselves a very big hole but this issue is not going away and the longer the PACE team delay and stonewall the worse it will be for them.

Please comment on it.
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239
A press release is also being prepared

List of UK health professionals and scientists who have signed:

Dr Simon Duffy

Professor Jonathan Edwards

Dr Keith Geraghty

Dr Ian Gibson

Dr Ellen Goudsmit

Dr Eliana Lacerda

Profesor Malcolm Hooper

Dr Charles Shepherd

Dr Tony Ward

Dr William Weir

CS
 

charles shepherd

Senior Member
Messages
2,239

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Will they dare to use again their narrative of a small minority of delusional patients refusing to be labelled as mentally ill?
Well, I guess they will, they've often proven they have no ethics, but it will be more and more difficult to go on.

Thanks to everyone who signed this letter @charles shepherd @Keith Geraghty @Jonathan Edwards

I can't help quoting this again
To protect patients from ineffective and possibly harmful treatments, White et al.’s recovery claims cannot stand in the literature.

Music to my ears!

(Disappointed but not surprised that there is not a single French signature...)
 

A.B.

Senior Member
Messages
3,780
Great comment by @Sasha

Drs. Murray and Kendler: Can you really not see that having recovery thresholds below trial-entry thresholds is insane? Would you like yourselves, or members of your own families, to be treated on the basis of a trial where this happened? Please now act in the interests of patients and retract this paper - and then explain why it's taken you four years to do it.