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.

Trial By Error, Continued: Why has the PACE Study’s “Sister Trial” been “Disappeared” and Forgotten?

Discussion in 'General ME/CFS News' started by Tom Kindlon, Nov 9, 2015.

  1. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes:
    8,236
    Yogi, catly, Chrisb and 23 others like this.
  2. Valentijn

    Valentijn WE ARE KINA

    Messages:
    14,280
    Likes:
    45,787
    A good article, especially if you haven't heard much about FINE before. Some typical BPS shenanigans were involved, to try to create a positive result. And it shows the origins of the Chalder Fatigue Scale scoring alterations made mid-trial in PACE.
     
    alkt, Sidereal, beaker and 11 others like this.
  3. Cheshire

    Cheshire Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,120
    Likes:
    8,969
    Yet a score of 60 was considered as "in normal range" in the PACE recovery study.
    Not only do they think we are neurotic, but they consider us as dumb.

    The PACE and FINE trials are so outragiously fraudulous, it's nearly unbelievable. The more I read, the more I'm appalled.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2015
    alkt, catly, Mary and 18 others like this.
  4. Scarecrow

    Scarecrow Revolting Peasant

    Messages:
    1,876
    Likes:
    5,287
    Scotland
    Oh, he's cute.
     
    K22, aimossy, WillowTree and 16 others like this.
  5. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes:
    8,236
    Hope somebody does a summary of this for those who won't read it due to its length.
     
    rosie26, snowathlete and ahmo like this.
  6. Marco

    Marco Grrrrrrr!

    Messages:
    2,369
    Likes:
    3,147
    Near Cognac, France
    I'm not sure that was a good idea. It opens up the defence of peer reviewed 'science' v 'gutter journalism'.
     
  7. BurnA

    BurnA Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,086
    Likes:
    9,846
    I dont think any journalist would consider giving a pre-publication copy of an investigative report to one of the parties involved, for any reason, certainly not for review.
     
    alkt, meadowlark, Sidereal and 9 others like this.
  8. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    I don't think so - especially as this appears to be gutter "science" vs peer-reviewed journalism (my impression is that Tuller has knowledgeable people helping him check his material).
     
    Michelle, leela, rosie26 and 7 others like this.
  9. snowathlete

    snowathlete

    Messages:
    3,312
    Likes:
    14,605
    UK

    The fact they expected this just highlights the whole problem with their viewpoint: they think they should be able to control what is said about their trial. They want to control the narrative. how many other journalists have they put pressure on to share their writings pre-publication? And how many have changed what they wrote as a result of this pressure?
     
  10. Advocate

    Advocate Senior Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes:
    70
    U.S.A.
    I LOVED it when David Tuller pointed out the difference between journalism and peer review to the cheeky, paid public relations specialist for PACE. Tuller's carefully researched articles have no relationship to yellow journalism--the kind apparently practiced in newspapers like the Telegraph. Tuller's statement is the one I sent to family members, along with the article.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
    alkt, catly, MeSci and 6 others like this.
  11. Sasha

    Sasha Fine, thank you

    Messages:
    12,777
    Likes:
    34,161
    UK
    It's an excellent article, BTW - well worth a read, and not as demanding as the others - it's a self-contained story.

    Fascinating - I didn't know about the FINE trial.
     
    catly, Valentijn, Kati and 5 others like this.
  12. viggster

    viggster Senior Member

    Messages:
    433
    Likes:
    3,669
    No investigative reporter would ever share his/her draft article with people outside of his or her editors. But a good investigative reporter (like David) does employ extensive fact-checking, which may include running certain passages or ideas past sources before publication. And David certainly gave the PACE people plenty of time and opportunity to respond - he sent them close to 100 questions that they ignored.

    EDIT - David tells me he sent them many fewer questions than I state, but he did give them a chance to respond to the big thrusts of the article.
     
    Last edited: Nov 10, 2015
    alkt, catly, lycaena and 26 others like this.
  13. Tom Kindlon

    Tom Kindlon Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,372
    Likes:
    8,236
    Wow. That was a lot of work for him to do by itself.
     
    Michelle, Blue, Sasha and 4 others like this.
  14. Advocate

    Advocate Senior Member

    Messages:
    515
    Likes:
    70
    U.S.A.
    They ignored almost 100 questions? I didn't know that. Thank you! (I'd love to know what the questions were.)
     
    Sean and Esther12 like this.
  15. Esther12

    Esther12 Senior Member

    Messages:
    8,449
    Likes:
    28,515
    By the standards of well researched, thoughtful and accurate writing, Tuller is rather ahead of the curve compared to most peer reviewed CFS research.

    I thought that this piece might be an easier introductory piece for people that his PACE work.
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
    alkt, catly, Sidereal and 9 others like this.
  16. Research 1st

    Research 1st Severe ME, POTS & MCAS.

    Messages:
    695
    Likes:
    2,288
    All very good points and easy to forget about when we're forced into a 'ohh yes it is, oh no it isn't' defensive response against the state approved nitwits. (By forcing patients to legitimise their 'ME' Vs 'CFS' the debate over the cause is nullified).

    I wonder who benefits from this and who can manipulate the narrative from this using the media and other allies. How ironic, 'allies'.

    The disease denial brigade harassing ME sufferers over the legitimacy of their disease, is the perfect environment, for the cause of the disease to hide in plain sight, because the cause is never scientifically debated, as long as:

    The incorrect diagnostic criteria is used - check
    The wrong patients are studied using psychological theories not disease signs (e.g Dysautonomia) - check
    Appropriate levels of biomedical funding is denied -check
    Applications for biomedical research, are turned down- check
    The 2015 narrative becomes psychological or biological or a bit of both which can last another two decades -check
    The disease is defined by a single symptom! - a symptom of subjective nature too - chronic fatigue - check.

    To recap:
    UK CFS cannot donate umbilical cord, but they need CBT/GET to reduce; fear of exercise'.
    It's utterly preposterous the two government based rules exist in the same time frame, but they do.

    Lets think why. And there's your answer. Didn't take long to work it out. The culprit, is novel immunosupressive agent + resulting immune status leading to seronegative pathogens, that do cause chronic fatigue initially, before the autoimmunity and brain damage/heart disease/cancer takes hold after decades of untreated infections - so then you have a different disease as it's more than one.

    Better assays will change the future. Proving the symptoms of ME are associated to disease signs, and only in these patients with signs of disease, do you find the pathogens.

    That's what is coming next, researching the people with inclusion criteria disease symptoms and signs of ME, rather than researching those without (diagnosis of exclusion), by proving they all share the novel pathogen, autoimmunity, but not the same co-infections .(The alleged irrational patients, will then seems rather sensible and clearly neglected as they insisted they were infected from day 1 and never recovered), as they do have intracellular infections and/or autoimmune diseases.

    Hence those in high places, are able silence UK rational scientific debate and thinking, with very good effect, via the Chronic Fatigue of unexplained cause ruse. Something the average person would laugh at, as they feel tired before, during, and after work.

    For UK medical propaganda to work effectively against ME, you must control the scientific section of the media with your version of the events using Psych CFS theory as the loud hailer.

    This has been achieved. PACE is just a fingerprint of a prior agreement of how to manage an unfortunate embarrassment. Make the patients, the embarrassment to society, and then themselves, by inducing feelings of shame and guilt by denying their crippling disease as psychogenic and their responsibility to recover from.

    CFS (designed by the CDC) does that beautifully + the negative media + the incorrect health policies. All in all a tremendous collusion of injustice and non science. What section of medicine could possibly know how to exploit that? Who would know the most about the human mind?
     
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2015
    alkt, rosie26 and WillowTree like this.
  17. Bob

    Bob

    Messages:
    9,844
    Likes:
    33,942
    England (south coast)
    Very thorough and very interesting. On a par with his PACE article for quality and intrigue. I think it helpfully builds on the story of CBT and GET being inappropriate therapies for ME/CFS. So it moves the story forward slightly to suggest that this is a systemic problem rather than just a single trial. It suggests that the patient community, and science, is being manipulated (i can think of stronger words) by a group of researchers. As a casual reader, I think I would have concluded that something was seriously wrong and needs fixing. I also thought the patient testimony made the read all the more interesting. And, of course, the participants' negative opinions about the therapies were validated because the treatment failed to demonstrate clinical benefit. I hope this article gets read widely.
     
    alkt, catly, rosie26 and 18 others like this.
  18. worldbackwards

    worldbackwards A unique snowflake

    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes:
    10,354
    Earth
    Does anyone seriously believe that people capable of a ninety minute session were that severely affected? I can't do much more than a half hour now and I used to be far worse.
     
    alkt, lycaena, Sidereal and 6 others like this.
  19. worldbackwards

    worldbackwards A unique snowflake

    Messages:
    2,091
    Likes:
    10,354
    Earth
    The patient testimony reminded me of my own experience - disbelief and running battles over everything. It's a stressful business.
     
    alkt, K22, MeSci and 2 others like this.
  20. SOC

    SOC

    Messages:
    7,802
    Likes:
    16,460
    Medical Research Council. MRC policy on data sharing and preservation mrc.ac.uk/research/resea…pic.twitter.com/J5yhkmy7Bi

    [​IMG]

    ... unless the participant data comes from an ME/CFS study in which case researcher's conclusions are far more important than the raw anonymised data because the researchers KNOW the truth without the necessity of supporting evidence, especially if that evidence does not support their conconclusions.

    Apparent MRC policy on data sharing
     
    alkt, Research 1st, lycaena and 8 others like this.

See more popular forum discussions.

Share This Page