A New Decade of ME Research: The 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference 2016
Mark Berry presents the first in a series of articles on the 11th Invest in ME International ME Conference in London ...
Discuss the article on the Forums.

The PACE trial [pro]: It’s time to broaden perceptions and move on. Keith Petrie, John Weinman

Discussion in 'Latest ME/CFS Research' started by Esther12, Apr 12, 2017.

  1. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    Joh, Jennifer J, JaimeS and 24 others like this.
  2. deleder2k

    deleder2k Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes:
    4,847
    Wow. What a lot of BS. Why can't PACE authors acknowledge that they've made major mistakes and correct them? Then we can move on.
     
    Joh, Jennifer J, JaimeS and 29 others like this.
  3. daisybell

    daisybell Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,602
    Likes:
    7,371
    New Zealand
    'We don't know much about scientific methods and we believe those wonderful PACE researchers. The patients are still being annoying - why can't they just admit that we are right and they are deluded???'
    Oh, f*** off.
     
    Jennifer J, Hutan, TiredSam and 21 others like this.
  4. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes:
    23,195
    That Cochrane review is a problem. The Cochrane brand is still highly respected.

    I think there's a good chance that the average reader will see the Cochrane review and conclude that CBT/GET cannot possibly be ineffective. They don't know about the conflicts of interest at play here, or about the switched outcomes in the review to make CBT/GET look effective.
     
  5. Hilary

    Hilary Senior Member

    Messages:
    190
    Likes:
    1,061
    UK
    Well it's just wrong - "the weight of evidence would seem to support these treatments" (CBT and GET). No it wouldn't. But hey, let's just keep saying black is white and suggesting these patients are more or less deranged.........
     
    atleje, Joh, Jennifer J and 21 others like this.
  6. Cheshire

    Cheshire Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,122
    Likes:
    9,003
    OMG
    What a load of bullshit
     
    Zombie_Lurker, sb4, GreyOwl and 17 others like this.
  7. A.B.

    A.B. Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,750
    Likes:
    23,195
    Look over there: it's a dangerous dualism. Don't mind the null results and outcome switching please. That dualism is the real problem.
     
    Joh, JaimeS, Jenny TipsforME and 23 others like this.
  8. emsho

    emsho

    Messages:
    47
    Likes:
    482
    Scotland
    Hutan, JaimeS, TiredSam and 16 others like this.
  9. AndyPR

    AndyPR Senior Member

  10. Webdog

    Webdog Senior Member

    Joh, GreyOwl, JaimeS and 16 others like this.
  11. trishrhymes

    trishrhymes Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,154
    Likes:
    17,884
    No you idiots, Petrie and Weinman, it's nothing to do with beliefs.

    The f***ing treatments don't f***ing work.

    And I lost count of the number of times they mention intimidation of researchers.

    :aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::aghhh::bang-head:
     
    JaimeS, PennyIA, sb4 and 26 others like this.
  12. AndyPR

    AndyPR Senior Member

    Perhaps we should count this as a positive. They obviously have no idea about the biomedical side of ME research, so presumably they are referring to psych researchers feeling intimidated, and if this is the case, I can only feel heartened that pysch researchers are discouraged from ME "research".
     
  13. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes:
    13,709
    UK
    Oh no it does not! The point being missed is that science should not be so bad that it is detrimental to patients and detrimental to incremental scientific progress. The only proper way to then redress that is to fully investigate, and sort the real problem out. Genuine (strictly within the law) justice is what helps abused people to move on.

    Less research by cr*p scientists? Fine by me.

    Hmmm ... that would suit you all just fine wouldn't it ... see above.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2017
  14. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,523
    Yes, I was speaking to a medical professional (who is fully aware of the many problems with PACE) about the problems with the Cochrane review and they were like: "Cochrane too?! But everyone just trusts them."
     
    JaimeS, anniekim, TiredSam and 15 others like this.
  15. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes:
    18,187
    I don't think they understand what they are talking about but they feel if they use big words that sound complex then it will support their argument. But they don't actually put forward an argument beyond saying they believe mind and body are linked and hence they are right.
     
    JaimeS, Binkie4, ukxmrv and 16 others like this.
  16. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes:
    18,187
    Cochrane equally know the problems with their review and have failed to act - given that they should be treated as untrustworthy. David Tovey who is their editor in chief is taking a huge risk of completely destroying the Cochrane brand and questions should be asked as to why.
     
  17. Barry53

    Barry53 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,277
    Likes:
    13,709
    UK
    As has been said in one of the other PACE threads - that is religion not science.
     
    Joh, Zombie_Lurker, sb4 and 14 others like this.
  18. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes:
    18,187
    That is quite an incredible statement. I would note they they don't support it with more that a comment that behavioural seems to be the ability to follow advice and take medicine. You don't need a psychologist for that!

    Earlier in the paper they say:
    Coyne has written quite a lot on the lack of evidence for psychological interventions in cancer. One trial showed an advantage but this was based on quoting a mean value on a small sample with a single outlier patient who got a lot better. This only came out later when people looked at the data.

    I can't help but think that psychologists who think they can cure or have a significant impact on a range of diseases are delusional or dangerous.
     
    Joh, PennyIA, sb4 and 24 others like this.
  19. Jonathan Edwards

    Jonathan Edwards "Gibberish"

    Messages:
    5,250
    Likes:
    32,015
    It seems quite cunning of the editor, David Marks, to include a pro-PACE piece as bad as this in the line up! It would be hard to be as ill informed as these authors. All they needed to do was download Simon Wessely's tweets and paste them together at random.
     
    Joh, Jennifer J, sb4 and 39 others like this.
  20. user9876

    user9876 Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,584
    Likes:
    18,187
    The Cochrane review is badly done. But it does nothing to speak to the methodological failings of PACE in terms of the lack of proper control, subjective outcomes, outcome switching and hiding of secondary outcomes.

    However, the PACE methodology failures reflect on the Cochrane review in that they include the PACE results as well as other trial with similar methodological failings.

    So saying Cochrane published a review does not provide any form of coherent defense against the failures of PACE yet this is the strongest argument they put forward.
     

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page