• 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.

The faculty Lounge. The PACE study: Open access and conflicts of interest

Messages
2,087
This is from Nov 11 but I can't find a thread on it, if there is one already just let me know.

The PACE Study: Open Access and Conflicts of Interest
Dr. Keith Geraghty, of the University of Manchester, has published this excellent article on the flaws in the PACE study of ME/CFS. He makes important points about academic integrity that are relevant to all of us (including those who are unaffected by the PACE problem itself; for background, see here and here). Here are two of his more important observations.

First, regarding data transparency, he notes that it took five years for patients to obtain the raw data underlying the PACE study, which ultimately revealed that the results (for the effectiveness of CBT and GET) had been exaggerated by about threefold:

There is a comment from SW worth reading.
This is what David Tuller had to say about it:

 

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
"I think you will find it is , as they say, a bit more complicated than you think..."

Of course. There's his Regius Professorship to consider for one thing.

You can smell the fury coming off that comment.

For sure.

He forgot to add "And if it isn't complicated I'll smother it in so much metaphysical bullshit you'll think it is. How d'you think we got the gig in the first place?"
 
Messages
2,087
Simon Wessely reminds me of some poor sucker who bought shares in a company only to see the value of them slowly but steadily evaporate.
Rather than taking the losses this poor sucker now spends his time going from blog to blog trying to convince people that is is in fact a great company to own shares in, despite all the negative news.

The beauty in this case is of course, that the more Simon comments the more it attracts attention and rebuttals making him appear a lot worse than if he said nothing at all. Keep it up Simon !
 
Messages
2,158
Simon Wessely reminds me of some poor sucker who bought shares in a company only to see the value of them slowly but steadily evaporate.
Rather than taking the losses this poor sucker now spends his time going from blog to blog trying to convince people that is is in fact a great company to own shares in, despite all the negative news.

The beauty in this case is of course, that the more Simon comments the more it attracts attention and rebuttals making him appear a lot worse than if he said nothing at all. Keep it up Simon !

I wish you were right, BurnA, but himself has just recently been awarded a Regius professorship, so the truth isn't getting through to power. I suspect he rather enjoys his little spats on-line. None of his bosses will see them, and it makes him feel superior while at the same time bolstering his inner victim narrative that we are all loonies out to get him.

And if you're reading this Sir S W. Grow up. You have ruined an awful lot of lives. As Harry Potter said to Voldemort as they fought their final duel, 'try for some remorse'.
 

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
I wish you were right, BurnA, but himself has just recently been awarded a Regius professorship, so the truth isn't getting through to power. I suspect he rather enjoys his little spats on-line. None of his bosses will see them, and it makes him feel superior while at the same time bolstering his inner victim narrative that we are all loonies out to get him.
Can you imagine anyone else of his standing lowering themselves to comment on some obscure blog? It must be getting to him if he feels that he (repeatedly) has to do that.
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
An Open Letter to Dr. Simon Wessely, Defender of the PACE Study

Dear Dr. Wessely:

I was surprised to see the president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists post a comment on a U.S. law blog. I suppose this means that I have gotten your attention in the discussion of Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), and that you feel compelled to respond to criticism of the PACE Study. That is a good thing.

Regrettably, your comment was petty and defensive, without engaging the actual issues relevant to PACE’s misleading conclusions. I will not revisit the study’s many scientific and methodological flaws, which have been well addressed by Dr. Keith Geraghty (here) and by Dr. David Tuller in his Virology Blog investigation (here). As you know, dozens of top scientists and clinicians have condemned the study in an open letter to The Lancet, stating that its flaws “have no place in published research.”

Instead, I want to address your rhetoric, which is unworthy of a serious scholar.

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/201...simon-wessely-defender-of-the-pace-study.html
 

Cheshire

Senior Member
Messages
1,129
Wessely's answer: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/201...0c#comment-6a00e54f871a9c883301b8d2397e7b970c

As usual, he doesn't respond to the questions asked directly, but still claims his complete and eternal devotion to the PACE trial.

A few points he made are intriguing (and maybe a bit worrying):

The PACE authors have indeed responded to the many claims and allegations about PACE, most of which were sadly repeated in the comments that have appeared in response to your blog and my brief interjection. They will respond in due course to a couple of new claims - i will leave that to them.

But I have to differ on that and I know I am not alone. My reading is that this area is nothing like as clear cut. I suspect that there will be more cases, judgements and decisions still to come, and we are a long way short of knowing how this will end.

(bold mine)
 
Messages
2,087
Wessely's answer: http://www.thefacultylounge.org/201...0c#comment-6a00e54f871a9c883301b8d2397e7b970c

As usual, he doesn't respond to the questions asked directly, but still claims his complete and eternal devotion to the PACE trial.

A few points he made are intriguing (and maybe a bit worrying):





(bold mine)
Is he just trying to cast doubt over the whole thing, without actually saying anything. That's my interpretation.
If the PACE authors want to respond that's great, let's see what they say, I can't imagine they will come up with anything that doesn't make them look bad.

As for more cases etc. I suspect this is innuendo, the cat is already out of the bag, what other decisions are there ?
 
Messages
2,087
@Jonathan Edwards reply is just too good.

Here's a snippet

He makes comments that reveal such a lack of understanding repeatedly, as have Dr Peter White, Dr Sharpe and a number of close colleagues. If they are not capable of understanding then at least that explains the poverty of the study design and how it came to be published. It seems that in the psychiatry community issues such as systematic bias are not understood.

The problem we now face is in ensuring that people with this lack of understanding are not involved in further research of this sort.

I urge you to read it in full here

http://www.thefacultylounge.org/201...0d#comment-6a00e54f871a9c883301bb0952afcf970d
 
Last edited:
Messages
2,391
Location
UK
Finally, you point to your own blog post, which ironically undermines your very point. You compare the PACE Trial to an ocean liner plotting a course from Southampton to New York, and express satisfaction that it made the trip “successfully across the Atlantic,” despite course corrections along the way. But surely you realize that a randomized controlled study is not supposed to have a fixed destination, but rather should follow wherever the evidence – or the current, to maintain the metaphor -- leads. You thus virtually admit that the PACE Trial was always intended to reach a particular result, and that adjustments along the way were necessary to get it there. Just so.
Love it.
 

Art Vandelay

Senior Member
Messages
470
Location
Australia
Is he just trying to cast doubt over the whole thing, without actually saying anything. That's my interpretation.
If the PACE authors want to respond that's great, let's see what they say, I can't imagine they will come up with anything that doesn't make them look bad.

As for more cases etc. I suspect this is innuendo, the cat is already out of the bag, what other decisions are there ?

I agree. This is just standard operating procedure for Wessely. He will either respond with obfuscation and waffle and then claim that the matter "is dealt with" or he will hint that an official response is coming later. It's all part of his strategy to not contribute to the debate with an argument of any substance because he knows he'll be caught out if he does.

Charlatans, bureaucrats and career politicians are good at it.
 
Last edited: