• 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, 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

trishrhymes

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
sarah darwins

sarah darwins

Senior Member
Messages
2,508
Location
Cornwall, UK
trishrhymes said:
He's attempting in a ham fisted way to play mind games and scare us into silence. Hollow threats. Best ignored. Silly man.
Click to expand...

Yep, those lines from SW imply some inside knowledge that at present he's unable/unwilling to reveal but "it's really big, folks, you wouldn't believe what my people are finding", as a certain electoral candidate of recent vintage would put it. SW is a world class bullshit artist.
 
TreePerson

TreePerson

Senior Member
Messages
292
Location
U.K.
Hi
I read The Faculty Lounge letter and comments a couple of days ago. At the time I thought I saw a further reply from Simon Wessely and an acknowledgment from S Lubet. I can't see it today. Can anyone help? Has it been taken down?
 
trishrhymes

trishrhymes

Senior Member
Messages
2,158
TreePerson said:
Hi
I read The Faculty Lounge letter and comments a couple of days ago. At the time I thought I saw a further reply from Simon Wessely and an acknowledgment from S Lubet. I can't see it today. Can anyone help? Has it been taken down?
Click to expand...
You're right, I can't see it there either. I remember he apologised for assuming the author of the blog hadn't done his research before writing it, then made vague references to more to come - there are a couple of quotes from it in #13od this thread.
 
W

worldbackwards

Senior Member
Messages
2,051
Big Si said:
But it is because I do believe that the studies of CBT and GET for CFS (including but certainly not restricted to the PACE trial) are sound, and currently remain the best evidence that we have for anything that can offer at least some help for sufferers, that I think it is worth putting up with the slings and arrows that inevitably follow. "
Click to expand...
Your heart goes out to him. He's sacrificed so much.
 
Snowdrop

Snowdrop

Rebel without a biscuit
Messages
2,933
slysaint said:
and currently remain the best evidence that we have for anything that can offer at least some help for sufferers,
Click to expand...

And that's the rub. And now it's also qualified 'at least some help' sounds watered down a great deal--almost homeopathic. In a sense it's hard to argue except to say that a truly steaming huge pile of crap is the best on offer doesn't really mean much from a sufferers perspective.

worldbackwards said:
Your heart goes out to him. He's sacrificed so much
Click to expand...

There'll be a lot more opportunities to come for him to play the martyr.
 
TiredSam

TiredSam

The wise nematode hibernates
Messages
2,677
Location
Germany
slysaint said:
SW " I stand by my comments. In answer to the question asked by another contributor, yes, I stand by my opinion of the PACE trial and in particular the key findings as laid out in the 2012 Lancet paper. I am of course aware of the hostility such sentiments engender from some quarters. I have looked at the responses since I posted, and they contain few surprises. Yes, it would be easier just to leave well alone and walk away. But it is because I do believe that the studies of CBT and GET for CFS (including but certainly not restricted to the PACE trial) are sound, and currently remain the best evidence that we have for anything that can offer at least some help for sufferers, that I think it is worth putting up with the slings and arrows that inevitably follow. "

:bang-head:
Click to expand...
"hostility", "slings and arrows", he just can't stop name-calling when a scientist or sufferer expresses a contrary opinion can he?

Instead of "hostility", why not use his mate Holgate's approved vocabulary and say the following:
I am of course aware of the bafflement such sentiments engender from some quarters.
Click to expand...

Or is it just the BPS crowd and their stooges who are allowed to be baffled, everyone else has to put up with being labelled hostile?
 
Wildcat

Wildcat

Messages
1,446
.

Today the Guardian repeats the SW 'Death Threats' story - in an article about the latest Maddox Prize (for brave scientists) winner, Professor Elizabeth Loftus.


The article is called 'We can't let the bullies win'
https://www.theguardian.com/science...s-awarded-2016-john-maddox-prize-false-memory


.... 'Loftus was awarded the 2016 John Maddox Prize on Thursday for promoting sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest in the face of deep, personal hostility. The prize is named after Sir John Maddox, the former editor of Nature. He was a fierce champion of science who never stood back from the controversial debates of his time.

'Sir Colin Blakemore, a neuroscientist and Maddox Prize judge, said Loftus had had an “enormous impact” on cognitive science. “What makes her such a worthy winner of the John Maddox Prize is her determination to use the lessons from her research to challenge courtroom procedures and the unjustified claims of some psychotherapists,” he said.

The prize is awarded jointly by Nature, the Kohn Foundation, and the charity Sense about Science. Previous winners include the psychiatrist Simon Wessely, who faced death threats for his work on chronic fatigue syndrome and mental health, and Edzard Ernst, a scientist and long-standing critic of alternative medicine.' .....

.
.


 
Esther12

Esther12

Senior Member
Messages
13,774
trishrhymes said:
Doh! You're right. Maybe my brain couldn't bear to register that dread name...
Click to expand...

They disappeared for me for a while today! Not sure what's happening, but thought I'd post a copy here for safe-keeping now that I can see it again:

Dear Dr Lubet
I am afraid that I did indeed jump to the conclusion that you had not looked in the detail I would have expected at the "case for the defence". Your blog seemed to me not to reflect what I know about the subject in general and PACE in particular, which is why I made what I am perfectly happy to accept was an erroneous conclusion. In a way I am now more, not less, surprised, by your blog, because I do think that the story is not as simple as you lay out, and you haven't convinced me otherwise.
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.
I am also happy to clarify my use of the word "contested". I am not a lawyer, and I can see that could easily have been interpreted in a way I didn't intend. I meant that the field of consent, data sharing, open data and the like is indeed an area that is contested, as is clear from numerous articles, blogs, letters and so on that have appeared in the last few months on this, as I am sure you know. You write in a clear cut way in which "PACE is bad/wrong" etc and no reasonable person would think otherwise. 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.
I also take issue with your reading of my nautical analogy. It was not about the evidence - the results are the results - but about how a trial is conducted. and on that matter, unlike the law, I do claim some expertise.

As for the rest, I stand by my comments. In answer to the question asked by another contributor, yes, I stand by my opinion of the PACE trial and in particular the key findings as laid out in the 2012 Lancet paper. I am of course aware of the hostility such sentiments engender from some quarters. I have looked at the responses since I posted, and they contain few surprises. Yes, it would be easier just to leave well alone and walk away. But it is because I do believe that the studies of CBT and GET for CFS (including but certainly not restricted to the PACE trial) are sound, and currently remain the best evidence that we have for anything that can offer at least some help for sufferers, that I think it is worth putting up with the slings and arrows that inevitably follow.
So to conclude, I genuinely apologise for my opening suggestion, which was made in good faith, but am happy to accept was erroneous. As for the rest, I think it's one of those "we will have to agree to disagree"
SW

Posted by: Simon Wessely | November 14, 2016 at 01:03 PM
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.